Jibboom Street, avoiding traffic congestion on Interstate 5, and making the Natomas area more livable and more of a destination.
Question 2: What concerns might you currently have
with the Truxel Bridge?
Some of the top concerns that participants spoke about
included safety concerns, particularly around
bicycle/pedestrian separation from cars on the bridge,
emergency vehicle access if there is an accident, and
ensuring that the bridge is not prone to flooding issues.
Participants also showed concern over the environmental integrity of the Lower American River and how the bridge and increased traffic may negatively impact nearby
habitats and wildlife in the American River Parkway.
Because Truxel Road is a prominent arterial roadway that runs through Gardenland/Northgate, South Natomas, and
North Natomas, participants shared their concerns that
Truxel Bridge may also lead to increased cut-through
traffic in adjacent neighborhoods and higher levels of
noise and light pollution in the region. Other concerns that attendees spoke about included the high cost of
building the bridge, the longevity of the bridge structure, and the ease of use for the various modes of
transportation that the bridge will serve. Other
participants felt that the Truxel Bridge isn’t needed and that bicyclists and pedestrians can take other routes to reach their destinations.
Question 3: How would having a bridge that
accommodates all modes of travel change current
travel patterns?
Participants within all seven groups stated that having multiple modes of travel on Truxel Bridge would help to encourage more people to walk, bike, or take transit. Some attendees stated that if light rail is included on the bridge, there would be an increase in ridership. Others spoke about how allowing cars on Truxel Bridge would divert more automobile traffic from Interstate 5, so this may lead to more traffic congestion on Truxel Road.
Some participants stated that their own travel patterns would not change, or they didn’t think travel patterns would change much in general.
A=endees discuss Truxel Bridge
Question 4: Looking at the diagram that illustrates the current lane configuration options of the bridge, please share your thoughts on what you like/dislike about each concept and why.
For Option A, participants expressed concerns that having light rail and vehicles in the same lane could lead to conflicts and delays if there is an accident, or if the light rail system breaks down. Participants recommended including more than one lane for shared vehicle and transit lanes to avoid these conflicts.
Others stated that bicyclists and pedestrians should be on one side of the bridge to allow for more space.
One of the main concerns expressed by participants regarding Option B was pedestrian and bicycle safety especially with the future light rail alignment. Some did not like the idea of the light rail system running along the right side of the bridge without clear indication that the train would return to the center median along Truxel Road due to the driveways and sidewalks beyond the bridge. Some also did not like the idea of the crossover of the train into the center median at the intersection with Garden Highway and Op$on A – Mixed Use Travel Lanes with Trail Connec$on
Op$on B – Separated Transit with Trail Connec$on
encouraged that the train be in the center lane before entering the bridge. Small group discussions also highlighted the minimal separation of bicyclists/pedestrians from vehicle lanes and asked for larger barriers to be implemented, and for bicycle lanes to be widened.
Some participants wanted to see the placement of transit lanes and vehicle lanes swapped on Option C, where transit is next to bicycle lanes to minimize the amount of vehicle contact with bicyclists or pedestrians. Like Option B, participants also wanted to see a larger barrier between bicycle/pedestrian routes and vehicles.
Overall comments on the cross sections include:
• Combining transit and automobile lanes could lead to delays/accidents if transit systems are experiencing breakdowns.
• Some participants wanted to see either a transit-only bridge or a pedestrian/bicycle-only bridge. • Place emergency service access on both sides of the bridge. • Add amenities like benches, trees, or shade structures.
Question 5: Using the map in front of you, please trace the current route(s) you take for your trips to downtown/midtown.
The following page includes some samples of routes that were submitted.
Option C – Sacramento RT Green Line
Comment Card Feedback (By Topic)
Cross Section Comments
• Dislike lack of barriers for cycle track in Option B.
Is it possible to have sidewalk/bike path to the side
with the trains because they will not be moving
into the bike lane? Without the barrier, it is so
tempting for drivers to drive down the bike lane
during periods of heavy traffic. Additional concern
regarding allowing large semi-trucks on the
bridge. The bridge should restrict large semitrucks from using the bridge, both to prevent Truxel from becoming even more of a truck route
as well as minimize the need to have large
footprints at the intersection of the bridge and
garden highway to allow for trucks to turn to/from
the bridge.
Safety
• Thank you for this informative presentation. Great
job facilitating discussion. Much needed bridge. Ideal to have less people be car-dependent but would be a loss for bridge to be overly restricted for types of use. Maybe focus on how to make it safer if personal autos are allowed on bridge.
• I do not know how this will benefit me and South Natomas. It appears that the bridge will be forced on us. The traffic is challenging on Truxel Road. What is going to be done to protect people from insane drivers?
Traffic Congestion
• I own a house in North Natomas and fully support a Truxel Bridge with cars and transit. It will provide redundancies to existing bridges and support light rail to the airport. We need protection for South Natomas increased traffic cutting through from I-80 to downtown. • I support the multi-modes of transportation across a new Truxel Bridge, however, I am concerned about vehicle speed and congestion on Truxel. Light rail will help me get from my home in South Natomas to my state job in Township 9 and to downtown for dining and entertainment. I am concerned about light rail platforms on Truxel and passenger vehicle safety.
Benefits/Concerns
• Benefits: faster to get downtown, may use bike and transit more with bridge. Concerns:
environmental damage, pollution from cars in river, extremely high cost, dangerous to have cars with bikes, increased traffic on Garden Hwy with no widening planned, increased traffic and Small group discussions
degradation of character to Truxel in South
Natomas. Building complicated new bridge when
existing infrastructure and light rail already not
maintained well.
• Benefits: year-round bike and pedestrian access to
Sac downtown which they don’t have during floods.
Light Rail to airport. Emergency vehicles access
Natomas more quickly. Another Emergency exit out
of the Natomas area if it floods. Concerns: Truxel
traffic will increase unbearably.
• Concerns: Inevitable destruction of biology
elements (habitat, wildlife, botanical) on the lower
American River Pkwy; If a bridge with a car is built,
more car traffic is enabled. If you’re trying to
reduce car congestion, limit access to public
transport (RT, buses) pedestrians, bikes— thereby
reducing traffic and greenhouse gas releases; Build
more public services (EMT’s fire houses, hospitals,
urgent care, churches, etc) in North and South
Natomas to meet current/future needs there
instead of so much movement required over the
American River.
• Preferred top cross sections where cars and trains
share the same lane. Why not have a bridge
without the cars? Concerns: Need to preserve the
environment as much as possible; Concerned
about safety on SacRT (unhoused). Benefits:
Emergency routes needed, more accessibility to downtown, alt routes for bicycle riders, better when floods. Biggest concerns is increased traffic impacting environment.
Environmental Concerns
• My concern is building an additional bridge through sensitive habitat along the American River. I would rather see widening of existing bridge coming to add transit and mixed use. Bikes and pedestrians should be on opposite sides of the bridge with transit/cars in between to avoid bike/pedestrian collisions.
• The bridge destroys a beautiful area of the parkway. This should be a national treasure. What’s left of the cottonwood forest will be wrecked.
• We can support construction of a bridge for light rail pedestrians and bikers. Four lanes of vehicle traffic are unacceptable. Critical habitat would be destroyed. The study components didn’t include the American River Parkway Plan.
A=endees listen to the project presenta/on
Miscellaneous
• Connect the township area with a pedestrian/bike
bridge near Camp Pollock. Lower Parkway could be
enhanced with walking trails. Car or trains could be
given on Steelhead.
• Great presentation. Needs discussion of effect by
the project on the surrounding neighborhood.
• There are already easy access routes to downtown
from Natomas, but there are dangerous because of
homeless.
Awareness and Publicity
When announcing the Community Conversation, the
project team shared the meeting information on the
Truxel Bridge website and distributed an email blast and subsequent reminders to a public distribution list of more than 190 community members who showed interest in
the feasibility study. Additionally, the City posted
workshop announcements on their social media accounts.
The project team implemented a community outreach
and education campaign to increase community
participation. Stakeholder representatives were
contacted to notify them about the Community
Conversation and ask to share information about the
meeting online. Meeting flyers and graphics were
available in both English and Spanish. The stakeholder
contact list consisted of more than 65 representatives
from active transportation advocacy groups, communitybased and social service organizations, school districts near the project area, Sacramento Regional Transit,
environmental advocates, neighborhood associations,
and nearby apartment complexes and employers. To help
reach community members who may frequently travel
along Truxel Road or near the future site of the bridge, the project team distributed flyers to businesses near the project area and placed ten lawn signs throughout the River District and South Natomas.
Lawn sign outside of Stanford Se=lement Center
Flyer used for event promo/on
Appendix
A. Meeting Presentation
B. Board Exhibits
C. Route Map
D. Meeting Flyer – English
E. Meeting Flyer – Spanish
Truxel Bridge Concept and
Feasibility Study
Community Conversation
January 10, 2023
Project Team
Fedolia “Sparky” Harris
City of Sacramento
Project Manager
Pamela Dalcin-Walling
Dokken Engineering
Consultant Lead
Gladys Cornell
AIM Consulting
Outreach Lead
Agenda
1. Introduction – Gladys Cornell
2. Welcome & Opening Remarks – Councilmember Karina Talamantes
3. Project Introduction – Fedolia ”Sparky” Harris
4. Introduction to Feasibility Study – Pamela Dalcin-Walling
5. Live Poll – All
6. Small Group Discussions - All
Welcome & Opening Remarks
District 3 Councilmember Karina Talamantes
What is the Truxel Bridge?
Presented by Fedolia “Sparky” Harris
What are we trying to address?
Limited connectivity across the American
River:
• Creates a barrier to economic activity, land
use development, social exchanges, and
access to jobs
• Contributes to rush hour delays on I-5
• Contributes to longer emergency response
times and limits evacuation alternatives
• Creates a barrier to recreational
opportunities within the American River
Parkway
What are we trying to address?
The river as a barrier causes longer trip
lengths between origins and destinations
that are physically close, which:
• Discourages walking and bicycling
• Impacts public health
• Leads to inefficient transit routing
• Consumes more fuel
• Generates higher levels of air pollutants
and Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due
to the reliance on automobiles
What are we trying to address?
Jibboom Street Bridge I-5 Bridge State Route 160 Bridge 2013 City Council Direction
2013 City Council Direction
Next Steps
Feasibility Study
Presented by Pamela Dalcin-Walling
Objective of the Study
Evaluate and assess the constraints, risks, cost, and overall viability of the bridge crossing.
Study Components
Engineering
• Survey
• Traffic Analysis
• Geotechnical
• Hydraulics
• Utilities
• Geometrics
• Structural
Environmental
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Mitigation Opportunities
• CEQA & NEPA
Public Engagement
• Community Engagement
Plan
• Project Website
• Project Information
Sheets
• Pop-up Events
• Community Meetings
Areas of Assessment
The assessment will cover the following disciplines:
• Geometrics
• Flood Control
• Environmental
• Structures
• Funding
Geometrics – Cross Section
Completed To Date
• Identified elements for serving
multiple modes of travel
• Coordinated with
stakeholders to refine
widths/placement of cross- sectional elements
Constraints Identified
• Existing infrastructure on
Sequoia Pacific Blvd.
• Refine cross sectional elements,
widths, and locations
Next Steps
Geometrics – Horizontal Alignment
Completed To Date
• Identified existing infrastructure
(buildings, utilities)
• Identified existing environmental
resources
• Developed alignments to reduce
impacts
Constraints Identified
• Existing buildings on Sequoia Pacific
Blvd.
• PG&E power line towers along
Garden Highway
• Trail connections
• Determine if buildings can be avoided
Next Steps
Geometrics – Vertical Alignment
Completed To Date
• Completed survey to identify
existing elevations of the site
• Identified clearance
requirements from Coast
Guard, FEMA, American River
Flood Control
Constraints Identified
• PG&E power line along Garden
Highway
• Levees along the American River
and Steelhead Creek
• Elevation of Garden Hwy/Truxel
• Evaluate extent of walls needed
Next Steps
Flood Control
Completed To Date
• Coordinated with Army Corps
of Engineers and Central
Valley Flood Protection Board
• Obtained preliminary
concurrence on vertical
clearance from US Coast
Guard
Constraints Identified
• Navigable waterway clearance
• Levee freeboard requirements
• Allowable impacts to water surface
elevations
• Evaluate impacts from
encroachments
• Develop mitigation options
Next Steps
Environmental
Completed To Date
• Initial identification of biological
& cultural resources
• Coordinated with Sacramento
County Regional Parks
• Initiated outreach to Native
American tribes
Constraints Identified
• Cultural resources
• Biological resources (protected
species, sensitive habitat, & waters)
• Limited mitigation opportunities
• Coordination with resource agencies
(CDFW, USFWS, NMFS) & tribes
Next Steps
Structural
Completed To Date
• Identified height and length
requirements for the bridge
• Identified potential pier
locations and widths
• Identified potential structure
types
Constraints Identified
• Vertical clearance requirements from
the Coast Guard, Army Corps, FEMA
• Environmental resource locations as it
relates to pier placement
Next Steps
• Pier optimization with flood control,
environmental resources
• Optimizing bridge type with cost
• Assess foundation options and costs
Funding
Completed To Date
• Outreach to federal, state, and
local representatives
Constraints Identified
• Magnitude of cost anticipated
• Availability of funding sources
Next Steps
• Identify cost range for project
Project Schedule
Live Poll
1. Scan the QR code with your smartphone‘s camera
to join the poll immediately.
2. Or, navigate to menti.com and enter the code
below to join.
3266 8754
3. Begin answering questions. The question will
change once the presenter has moved to the next
slide.
Small Group Discussions
1.What benefits do you think you, your family, and/or your community would have if there was a faster connection between your neighborhood and downtown/midtown?
2.What concerns might you currently have with the Truxel Bridge?
3.How would having a bridge that accommodates all modes of travel (auto, bike, pedestrian, and transit) change your current travel patterns?
4.Looking at the diagram that illustrates the current lane configuration options of the bridge, please share your thoughts on what you like/dislike about each concept and why.
5.Using the map in front of you, please trace the current route(s) you take for your trips to downtown/midtown. Tell us what challenges you face.
Stay Involved
• Sign up for email updates at
www.bit.ly/TruxelBridge
• Project contact:
Fedolia “Sparky” Harris,
[email protected]
DISCOVERY PARK
STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y
TRUXEL RD
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL
RICHARDS
BLVD
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL
RICHARDS
BLVD
DISCOVERY PARK
PG&E TOWER
STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y
TRUXEL RD
TWO RIVERS TRAIL
TRAIL CONNECTION TO
JEDEDIAH SMITH TRAIL
TRAIL CONNECTION TO
TOWNSHIP 9 STATION
SERVICES(OES)
EMERGENCY
CAL-OFFICEOF
SOLUTIONS
WCPSACPD
OES
CALTO LIGHT RAIL STATION
TRAIL CONNECTION
EXISTING BIKE TRAIL
TRAIL CONNECTION TO
LIGHT RAIL STATION
TRAIL CONNECTION TO
TWO RIVERS TRAIL
TRAIL CONNECTION TO LEGEND:
ALIGNMENT
SAC RT GREEN LINE
DRAFT ALIGNMENT
LIGHT RAIL TRACK
AMERICAN RIVER
STEELHEAD CREEK
PLAN AND PROFILE
JANUARY 2024
PG&E TOWER
JEDEDIAH SMITH TRAIL
TRAIL CONNECTION TO
TWO RIVERS TRAIL
TRAIL CONNECTION TO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL &
ACCESS TO BUSINESS
ACCESS TO BUSINESS
TRUXEL BRIDGE
CONCEPT & FEASIBILITY STUDY
SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
2013 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS
We are here
OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC
Truxel Bridge
Concept & Feasibility Study
American
River
Crossing
Study
Feasibility
Study
Environmental
Clearance/
Preliminary
Engineering
Final Design,
Right of Way,
Permitting &
Mitigation
Construction
Trace your current route to downtown/midtown Sacramento Truxel Rd Northgate Blvd W El Camino Ave
Garden Hwy
San Juan Rd
10th
St
21st
St
Richards Blvd
Join the
Community
Conversation
for the Truxel Bridge
Feasibility Study
Wednesday, January 10
5:30–7:00 PM
Read Academy
2565 Millcreek Drive, Sacramento
RSVP: TruxelConversation.eventbrite.com
The City of Sacramento is planning for a new bridge across the American River which 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.
For more information, visit: www.bit.ly/TruxelBridge
or contact Fedolia “Sparky” Harris at [email protected] Please RSVP
by going to
the link or
scanning the
QR code:
VENUE CHANGED!
Únete a la
Conversación
Comunitaria
el Estudio de Viabilidad
del Puente Truxel
Miércoles, 10 de enero
5:30–7:00 PM
Read Academy
2565 Millcreek Drive, Sacramento
Confirmar su asistencia:
TruxelConversation.eventbrite.com
La Ciudad de Sacramento está planificando un nuevo
puente sobre el American River que creará una mejor
conexión para aquellos que viajan entre las comunidades del norte de Sacramento y el centro de Sacramento.
Los objetivos de la Ciudad de proporcionar un mejor
acceso entre comunidades mejorarán la calidad del aire, potenciarán las oportunidades laborales y el desarrollo económico, y mejorarán la respuesta a emergencias.
Para más información, puedes visitar: www.bit.ly/TruxelBridge o contactar a Fedolia “Sparky” Harris en [email protected] Por favor,
confirma tu
asistencia yendo
al enlace o
escaneando el
código QR
¡NUEVO LUGAR!
1 Introduction
In January 2024, the City of Sacramento hosted the first in-person community mee<ng as part of the Truxel
Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study’s public outreach
and engagement process. The purpose of the mee<ng
was to introduce the study to the public, share an
overview of the draH alignment and cross sec<ons, and
gather ini<al feedback from the public on the preliminary bridge design. As a follow up to the mee<ng, the City
hosted an Online Community Ques<onnaire from
February 12 - 26, 2024. The ques<onnaire, which
received a total of 1,019 responses from the community, served as a way for the larger Sacramento community to
share their input if they were unable to aQend the inperson community mee<ng.
Project Background
In 2013, the City completed the American River Crossings Alterna<ves Study, and the City Council adopted the vision for a new mul<-modal crossing at Truxel Road. The Truxel Bridge alignment was recommended and adopted based on its ability to address limited connec<vity across the lower American River which creates a barrier to downtown Sacramento for communi<es north of the river.
The City’s plan for Truxel Bridge will create a more direct connec<on for those walking, biking, taking transit, or driving between northern Sacramento communi<es and Sacramento’s urban core. It will also provide beQer access, improve air quality, improve job opportuni<es, enhance economic development, and improve emergency response <mes.
Ques<onnaire Methodology
When par<cipants visited the online ques<onnaire webpage, they were able to learn more about the Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study by watching a video presenta<on. The ques<onnaire included 9 ques<ons regarding the following topics:
• Current community travel paQerns/modes used across the lower American River and the purpose of their trips.
• Community benefits of the proposed bridge.
• Concerns about the proposed bridge.
• Proposed bridge cross sec<ons.
Awareness and No<fica<on
The project team implemented a community outreach and educa<on campaign to increase community par<cipa<on in the ques<onnaire.
• Email No<fica<on: The project team sent email no<fica<ons to a public database of more than 6,000 contacts. These included stakeholders and community members who signed up for email Truxel Bridge proposed loca1on
2 no<fica<ons about City of Sacramento projects,
including Truxel Bridge. The first email was sent on
February 12 with subsequent reminders on
February 20 and February 26.
• Stakeholder Communica<ons: AIM Consul<ng
emailed and called more than 80 stakeholder
representa<ves covering interest such as: ac<ve
transporta<on, business development,
community-based organiza<ons, school districts,
elected officials, environmental organiza<ons, and
underrepresented communi<es. These
representa<ves were provided with informa<on
about the online ques<onnaire and asked to share
the flyer on their website, email newsleQers, or
social media.
• Social media: The City of Sacramento posted about
the Truxel Bridge on their social media accounts
(including Facebook, Instagram and X) on February 15, February 17, and February 23. AIM Consul<ng also posted a boosted adver<sement on Meta Business about the ques<onnaire, which ran from February 12 – February 20.
• City Express: The City of Sacramento posted a City Express ar<cle on their blog on February 15. • Media Release: The city distributed a media release to news outlets in the Sacramento region on February 16. The following outlets posted about the ques<onnaire. o Fox 40
o CBS 13
o KCRA 3
• Flyer Delivery: Flyers with informa<on about the online ques<onnaire were distributed to businesses adjacent to Truxel Road near the proposed project area.
Social media graphic for online ques1onnaire
3 Cross Sec<on Concepts
The community ques<onnaire included depic<ons of the proposed bridge cross sec<on alterna<ves showing the width of the bridge with the placement of the different modes of travel (walking, biking, driving, and public transit).
Op<on A. Mixed Use Travel Lanes with Trail Connec<on
Pros: Cons:
• Narrowest cross-sec<on and smallest
footprint
• Poten<ally lowest cost
• Less impact to nearby buildings on Sequoia
Pacific Blvd
• Center median for emergency vehicles
• Shoulders for vehicle breakdowns
• Includes Class I trail for bikes and peds
• BeQer suited for connec<on with Jedediah
Smith trail
• Mixed-use lanes will help control the speed
of traffic
• Physical barriers separate pedestrians and
bikes from vehicles
• Mixed-use lanes may be uncomfortable for
some drivers
• Pedestrians are not fully separated from
bikes
• Poten<al transit delays associated with
shared lane
4 Op<on B. Separated Transit with Trail Connec<ons
Pros: Cons:
• All modes of travel are separated
• BeQer suited for connec<on with Jedediah
Smith trail
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will
help to control vehicle speeds
• Emergency vehicles will have to use bike
path or transit lanes for access
• Vehicle breakdowns will impede traffic due
to the reduced shoulder space
• No physical barrier separa<ng pedestrians
and bikes from vehicles
• Addi<onal wait <me at the Richards
Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden
Highway intersec<ons due to separate light
rail signal <ming.
5 Op<on C. Sacramento RT Green Line
Pros: Cons:
• All modes and direc<ons of travel are
separated
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will
help to control vehicle speeds
• One direc<onal bike lane provides limited
connec<vity to Jedediah Smith Trail
• Widest cross-sec<on
• Likely most expensive
• Mountable Class II Bike Lane is the only
space available for emergency
access/vehicle breakdowns
• No physical barrier separa<ng pedestrians
and bikes from vehicles
6 Ques<onnaire Feedback
1. What is your zip code?
• 92660 (Newport Beach) – 1
• 94558 (Napa)– 1
• 95356 (Modesto) – 1
• 95613 (Coloma) – 1
• 95624 (Elk Grove) – 1
• 95632 (Galt) – 1
• 95650 (Loomis) – 1
• 95661 (Roseville) – 1
• 95746 (Granite Bay) – 1
• 95747 (Roseville) – 1
• 95758 (Elk Grove) – 1
• 95824 (Lemon Hill) – 1
• 95828 (Florin) – 1
• 95832 (Freeport) – 1
• 95841 (North Highlands) – 1
• 95843 (Antelope) – 1
7 • 95901 (Marysville) – 1
• 95626 (Elverta) – 2
• 95673 (Rio Linda) – 2
• 95695 (Woodland) – 2
• 95827 (Bradshaw Woods) – 2
• 95829 (Vineyard) – 2
• 95842 (North Highlands) – 2
• 96816 (Honolulu) – 2
• 95618 (Davis) – 3
• 95621 (Citrus Heights) – 3
• 95660 (North Highlands) – 3
• 95776 (Woodland) – 3
• 95628 (Fair Oaks) – 4
• 95670 (Rancho Cordova) – 4
• 95821 (Arden-Arcade) – 4
• 95823 (Valley Hi/North Laguna) – 4
• 95605 (West Sacramento) – 5
• 95864 (Arden-Arcade) – 5
• 95630 (Folsom) – 6
• 95838 (North Sacramento) – 6
• 95616 (Davis) – 7
• 95691 (West Sacramento) – 8
• 95825 (Arden-Arcade) – 8
• 95608 (Carmichael) – 11
• 95817 (Oak Park) – 18
• 95822 (South Land Park/Meadowview) – 19
• 95826 (College Glen/Rosemont) – 20
• 95831 (Pocket) – 20
• 95820 (Fruitridge) – 21
• 95819 (East Sacramento) – 26
8 Ques<on 2. How oHen do you travel between north Sacramento (including north and/or south Natomas) to downtown across the lower American River?
9 Ques<on 3. What travel modes do you currently use to travel between north Sacramento (including north and/or south Natomas) and downtown/midtown?
(Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on)
Other comments include:
• I don't, because I don't live there, but we need safe, environmentally friendly transit, not more car garbage.
• There is no good public transporta<on op<ons. I would love to ride the light rail from Natomas • I would prefer to take transit over driving if a frequent (15 minute frequency) and efficient op<on was available.
10 Ques<on 4. What is the purpose of your travel between north Sacramento (including north and/or south Natomas) and downtown/midtown?
(Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on)
Other comments include:
• Using routes for recrea<on, exercise (running on trails or travelling to a gym), or leisure (viewing nature) – 95 comments
• Travelling to visit friends, family, or colleagues – 54 comments • Going to the airport – 27 comments
• Volunteer work at and around the America River Parkway – 10 comments • Going to church or a religious ins<tute – 6 comments
11 Ques<on 5. Please share your thoughts on what benefits you and/or others in your community would receive from a bridge that accommodates all modes of travel (automobiles, transit, bicycle, and walking) between north Sacramento and downtown/midtown across the lower American River. (Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on) Other comments include:
• Poten<al space for Light Rail to the airport – 19 comments • Provide a safer route for when SR 160 or Jibboom Street is flooding – 18 comments • Promo<ng walking, biking, and transit long-term helps promote cleaner environment and air quality – 6 comments
12 Ques<on 6. What concerns might you currently have with the future Truxel Bridge? (Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on)
Other comments include:
• Concerns about including vehicular traffic on the bridge – 67 comments • Concerns about unhoused popula<on – 49 comments
• Ensuring that there is space for light rail/ensuring that light rail is included – 35 comments • Truxel Bridge is not necessary/there are other alternate routes – 20 comments • Concerns around how crime may increase – 17 comments
• Not wan<ng light rail along Truxel Bridge – 9 comments • Amount of <me needed to construct the bridge – 5 comments
13 Ques<on 7. How would having a bridge that accommodates all modes of travel change current travel paQerns?
(Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on)
For a full list of community comments, see Appendix A.
14 Op<on A: Mixed Use Travel Lanes with Trail Connec<on
Themes from par<cipants who liked Op<on A:
• The mul<-purpose path is a smart and efficient way to mix different modes and they like how it is fully separated from vehicular traffic with a barrier.
• There is an op<on for pedestrians to use either the sidewalk or mul<-use path on either side of the bridge if they want to separate from cyclists.
• The placement of the different lanes and modes on Op<on A was an effec<ve use of the limited space, and people liked that this op<on is the narrowest. • This has a lower cost compared to other cross sec<on concepts and there is a shoulder/emergency lane op<on in case there are transit stops or motor accidents.
Themes from par<cipants who disliked Op<on A:
• Having mixed transit and vehicle lanes may lead to more frequent risk of accidents, or traffic conges<on in the case of transit delays or breakdowns.
• Having pedestrians and bicyclists share a mul<-use path may lead to more points of conflict.
15 Op<on B. Separated Transit with Trail Connec<ons
Themes from par<cipants who liked Op<on B:
• The transit and vehicle lanes are separated which they feel would be easier and safer to drive on. • Similarly, cyclists and pedestrians each have their own space to travel on. • Having a narrower space for driving would help to control vehicle speeds. • There is poten<al for connec<ng to the exis<ng Jedediah Smith trail and people want to see the bike path become part of Sacramento’s larger bicycle network.
Themes from par<cipants who disliked Op<on B:
• People want to see a bridge that is more focused on comfortability for those who are walking or biking and want to see a physical barrier or bollards between vehicles and cyclists. Pedestrian and bicycle safety was the primary concern and most frequent comment for this op<on. • This cross sec<on is wider and may have a larger impact to the surrounding areas, including the American River Parkway below.
• There is a lack of shoulders or dedicated emergency vehicle lanes, and emergency vehicles may have to use the bike path or transit lane to reach accidents. 16 Op<on C. Sacramento RT Green Line
Themes from par<cipants who liked Op<on C:
• There is a balance of the different modes and lanes on either side of the bridge and the transit lanes are in the middle.
• The placement of the different modes would best align with the current lane configura<on of Truxel Road to ensure consistency while entering and leaving the bridge. • The transit and vehicle lanes, as well as the bicycle and pedestrian paths, are fully separated. • The narrower vehicle lanes and lack of adjacent shoulders will help to control and slow vehicle speeds.
Themes from par<cipants who disliked Op<on C:
• Want to see more of a physical barrier between pedestrians and bicyclists and safety is a key priority.
• Some commenters would rather see a protected mul<-use path, rather than tradi<onal bike lanes on either side of the road, which in turn limits connec<vity to the exis<ng trail nearby. • Op<on C is the widest, most expensive op<on and may have the largest impact to the American River Parkway.
17 Other Overall Comments and Key Themes
(Note: some comments were not consistent with the scope and purpose of the project) • Respondents’ highest priori<es include ensuring the safety of all users on the bridge, ensuring that transit or light rail is included in an efficient way that brings more connec<vity, and ensuring that natural and cultural resources on the American Parkway and surrounding neighborhoods are preserved.
• Par<cipants want to make sure that any light rail or transit on the bridge be as efficient as possible to ensure that more people use it.
• Some commenters feel that Truxel Bridge is not needed and that there are sufficient op<ons for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the lower American River. • Some par<cipants expressed that they would prefer private vehicles to not be allowed on Truxel Bridge, or they want to see an op<on that priori<zes walking, bicycling, or transit more. • Some commenters are opposed to including transit on the bridge or on Truxel Road at all and theorize that this may lead to higher crime rates in their neighborhoods. 1 Appendix
A. Community Feedback
a. Ques5on 1: What is your zip code?........................................................................2 b. Ques5on 3: What travel modes do you currently use to travel between…………….5 c. Ques5on 4: What is the purpose of your travel between north Sacramento………6 d. Ques5on 5: Please share your thoughts on what benefits you and/or others……12 e. Ques5on 6: What concerns might you currently have with the future Truxel……16 f. Ques5on 7: How would having a bridge that accommodates all modes of………..25 g. Ques5on 8a: What do you like about Op5on A?...................................................30 h. Ques5on 8b: What do you dislike about Op5on A?..............................................56 i. Ques5on 9a: What do you like about Op5on B?...................................................87 j. Ques5on 9b: What do you dislike about Op5on B?............................................110 k. Ques5on 10a: What do you like about Op5on C?...............................................136 l. Ques5on 10b: What do you dislike about Op5on C?..........................................156 m. Ques5on 11: Do you have any other ques5ons for the project team?...............181 B. Bridge Cross Sec5ons
a. Op5on A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
b. Op5on B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
c. Op5on C……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
C. Ques5onnaire Flyer
a. English………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
b. Spanish…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2 1. What is your zip code? • 95816 • 95816 • 95818 • 95818 • 95822 • 95816 • 95814 • 95828 • 95817 • 95817 • 95822 • 95822 • 95826 • 95818 • 95616 • 95814 • 95819 • 95816 • 95816 • 95819 • 95827 • 95630 • 95820 • 95816 • 95818 • 95822 • 95833 • 95817 • 95814 • 95673 • 95820 • 95826 • 95819 • 95832 • 95691 • 95822 • 95831 • 95820 • 95819 • 95818 • 95816 • 95660 • 95630 • 94558 • 95822 • 95776 • 95776 • 95817 • 95776 • 95814 • 95608 • 95819 • 95616 • 95819 • 95811 • 95816 • 95820 • 95819 • 95838 • 95826 • 95670 • 95819 • 95825 • 95838 • 95833 • 95822 • 95818 • 95818 • 95816 • 95816 • 95833 • 95818 • 95820 • 95820 • 95608 • 95831 • 95814 • 95608• 95814 • 95833 • 95818 • 95816 • 95819 • 95826 • 95820 • 95819 • 95814 • 95864 • 95816 • 95356 • 95831 • 95818 • 95826 • 95818 • 95819 • 95819 • 95818 • 95822 • 95831 • 95816 • 95822 • 95628 • 95821 • 95818 • 95831 • 95817 • 95819 • 95818 • 95831 • 95820 • 95818 • 95835 • 95818 • 95616 • 95816 • 95818 • 95818 3 • 95608 • 95814 • 95818 • 95843 • 95838 • 95833 • 95825 • 95758 • 96816 • 95817 • 9560 • 95835 • 95816 • 95628 • 95814 • 95818 • 95814 • 95831 • 95831 • 95818 • 95621 • 95814 • 95691 • 95814 • 95834 • 95814 • 95826 • 95816 • 95818 • 95814 • 95833 • 95835 • 95816 • 95608 • 95819 • 95818 • 95820 • 95616 • 95691 • 95624• 95814 • 95816 • 95816 • 95814 • 95814 • 95818 • 95608 • 95816 • 95816 • 95831 • 95822 • 95816 • 95820 • 95628 • 95833 • 95826 • 95835 • 95660 • 95833 • 95827 • 95833 • 95818 • 95814 • 95747 • 95816 • 95825 • 95816 • 95823 • 95835 • 95826 • 95826 • 95864 • 95818 • 95816 • 95818 • 95826 • 95816 • 95816 • 95833 • 95921• 95508 • 95608 • 95817 • 95626 • 95834 • 95838 • 95831 • 95829 • 95842 • 95814 • 95831 • 95816 • 95820 • 95833 • 95818 • 95820 • 95816 • 95746 • 95605 • 95613 • 95820 • 95816 • 95608 • 95814 • 95825 • 95822 • 95817 • 95818 • 95816 • 95616 • 95814 • 95814 • 95816 • 95816 • 95826 • 95818 • 95605 • 95819 • 95826 • 95829 4 • 95816 • 95833 • 95822 • 95826 • 95818 • 95630 • 95816 • 95816 • 92660 • 95608 • 95815 • 95818 • 95818 • 95831 • 95814 • 95605 • 95819 • 95605 • 95818 • 95818 • 95818 • 95650 • 95630 • 95864 • 95819 • 95833 • 95818 • 95691 • 95831 • 95818 • 95814 • 95661 • 95819 • 95831 • 95826 • 95820 • 95820 • 95826 • 95816 • 95816• 95820 • 95814 • 95691 • 95811 • 95818 • 95819 • 95822 • 95822 • 95814 • 95621 • 95833 • 95814 • 95816 • 95817 • 95817 • 95816 • 95816 • 95825 • 95626 • 95616 • 95842 • 95841 • 95691 • 95835 • 95820 • 95816 • 95660 • 95695 • 95816 • 95831 • 95816 • 95814 • 95816 • 95834 • 95821 • 95670 • 95818 • 95835 • 95823 • 95670• 95821 • 95901 • 95824 • 95819 • 95825 • 95816 • 95818 • 95831 • 95616 • 95818 • 95618 • 95618 • I • 95814 • 95818 • 95817 • 95833 • 95630 • 95822 • 95838 • 95816 • 95621 • 95838 • 95819 • 95816 • 95817 • 95822 • 95819 • 95831 • 95814 • 95834 • 95816 • 95822 • 95817 • 95864 • 95833 • 95816 • 95819 • 95822 • 95823 5 • 95831
• 95864-4926
• 95826
• 95818-3601
• 95816
• 95818
• 95691
• 95695
• 95816
• 95816
• 95818
• 95826
• 95825
• 95831
• 95818
• 95826
• 95814
• 95814
• 95817
• 95818
• 95831
• 95816
• 95818
• 95822
• 95820
• 96816
• 95826
• 95820
• 95820
• 95618
• 95817
• 95817
• 95605
• 95691
• 95632
• 95670
• 95835
• 95816
• 95816
• 95820
• 95818
• 95814
• 95628
• 95630
• 95818
• 95608
• 95821
• 95816
• 95816
• 95816
• 95825
• 95817
• 95823
• 95819
• 95818
• 95814
• 95608
• 95816
• 95819
• 95826
• 95819
• 95816
• 95817
• 95673
• 95814
3. What travel modes do you currently use to travel between north Sacramento (including north and/or south Natomas) and downtown/midtown?
(Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on) • Bike
• I don't, because I don't live there,
but we need safe, environmentally
friendly transit, not more car
garbage.
• Both auto and bicycle
• Uber/lyc
• There is no good public
transporta5on op5ons. I would love
to ride the light rail from Natomas
• Running
• none
• Run
• running
• N/A
• RideShare/Lyc/Uber
• Carpool
• Biking
• Parkway visits
• Jogging stroller
• Running
• Rideshare
• Car
• Nnnn
• I would prefer to take transit over
driving if a frequent (15 minute
frequency) and efficient op5on was
available.
6 4. What is the purpose of your travel between north Sacramento (including north and/or south Natomas) and downtown/midtown?
(Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques5on) • visi5ng friends
• It is limited due to lack of safe convenient bike access for this bike commuter • Travel to/from Scout Camporee, bike rides
• bike ride to old sac and downtown
• Restaurant
• Airport, visit family and friends
• Geing to airport
• To see my city
• recrea5on
• Restaurants
• Exercise
• visit son's apartment
• Family
• Restaurant
• Recrea5on
• Leisure
• Exercise
• Volunteer opportuni5es
• Gym and Exercise
• Various
• Aging parents
• recrea5on/cycling; in route to airport
• Dining
• Charging car
• Other businesses that are not shopping, entertainment, nor medical (e.g. doggy daycare) • travel to airport
• Family
• Both exercise and errands
• Seeing friends
• visi5ng friends
• Sports
• Airport
• Cycling
• working out / swimming at a Natomas Gym
• exercise
• Social
7 • Recrea5on
• used to commute downtown
• Visit family
• Volunteer cleaning the Parkway with River City Waterway Alliance • Recrea5onal
• Fitness ac5vi5es in Natomas
• Recrea5on
• Visit friends
• Appointments and mee5ng people
• Fitness
• recrea5on
• Working out- running on the trail
• Friends
• Hair appointment
• Visit family
• Veterinarian
• Various
• Exercise
• Random
• Consul5ng
• Airport
• Travel
• Going to/from the airport
• Volunteer work/Advocacy
• Mural viewing
• Visit friends
• Bike ride
• Family visits
• Visi5ng friends in North Natomas
• Recrea5on. Visi5ng family
• To eat
• Social
• Recrea5on
• Recrea5on
• My parents live in Natomas, but I live in West Sac
• Family
• Recrea5on
• Friends, bank
• Visi5ng family and travel to airport
• Cycling
8 • Access to SMF
• Training Runs
• Travel to Airport
• exercise
• Exercise
• Dance lessons
• Visit parkway, other areas.
• Gym
• i drive rideshare
• recrea5on/exercise
• Exercise
• Restaurants
• Airport
• Pleasure
• wellness
• Brother lives in Natomas
• Dining
• Volunteering
• Bicycle riding for sport/exercise
• Visi5ng Old North Sac, Natomas shopping, garden highway • Travel
• none
• Recrea5on
• Family
• Bicycle Touring
• senior services
• Airport
• restaurants
• Other
• Girl friend
• Personal
• Recrea5on
• fitness
• Visi5ng family and friends,
• Banking, and Dance school
• visi5ng friends and alending swim prac5ce
• n/a
• Gym (CalFit @Truxel & 80)
• Gym workout
• Gym
9 • Biking
• restaurants
• Caretaker Natomas rose garden
• various
• Mee5ng
• Exercise
• Airport
• Avoid using Highway 50 to reach the other areas....Fair Oaks, Roseville, etc. • Visi5ng family
• Gym
• Church
• family
• Travel
• Recrea5on
• Restaurants
• Recrea5on
• Visi5ng friends, airport runs
• Recrea5on, travel to airport/other des5na5ons
• Religious
• dining, shopping, photography
• Exercise and community outreach
• a lille bit of everything
• Sports fields
• restaurants
• Visit friends
• visit family, go to airport, travel out of town
• Food
• Recrea5on
• Travel and recrea5on
• Church
• Volunteer work
• airport
• Short cut
• residence
• Dinner
• Commute to Stockton and back
• parkway and creek ac5vi5es
• Visi5ng assisted living facility
• bike ride for lunch
• Visit family
10 • Cycling club
• cycling
• Great hospitality offerings
• Airport
• airport
• Recrea5on
• Just because
• Social
• Clubs, organiza5ons I belong to.
• Recrea5on, connec5ng to other trails
• recrea5on
• Restaurants
• Visi5ng family and friends; avoiding crowded freeways • Visi5ng friends
• Leisure
• Exercize
• Recrea5on
• Visi5ng friends
• Recrea5on
• sports and leisure
• All of the above
• Gym
• Dinning
• Recrea5on-bicycling
• Airport
• Airport
• Visi5ng my children
• Social ac5vi5es
• Visi5ng friends
• friends and farmers market
• Visit friends
• Social and visit friends
• Airport
• kids sports
• gym
• Visi5ng friends
• Bike rides with friends
• Excercise
• Visi5ng Family
• exercise
11 • Living my life
• Family lives in S. Natomas
• visit family
• Exercise
• massage
• Airport access
• Personal business appointments
• Gym
• looking at proper5es
• Community center/shopping
• Health
• recrea5onal
• Airport
• I work in Downtown Sacramento and ocen visit friends in Arden Arcade/Arden Fair Mall Area, and I also frequently visit Chevy's on the River, north of Downtown Sacremento. I cross the American River between Pipe's bridge and Jiboom Stree frequently by bike and I also take the light rail and drive on 160 some5mes.
• Exercise
• gym, friends
• gymnasium
• visi5ng children and grandchildren
• Recrea5on
• To hold up a middle finger for Slimeberg and his whore Ashby • exercise (biking)
• Exercise
• accessing Camp Pollack monthly
• Restaurants
• Church
• Visi5ng friends
• Recrea5on
• Outdoor nature recrea5on
• Dining
• Family lives in midtown
• YMCA
• Leisure
• Business, Personnel Services, Restaurants
• Nn
• Airport
• Visi5ng family and friends.
• church
12 • Volunteer Work
• reviewing built environment
• Visi5ng friends
• hang around midtown
• Church, volunteering
• Volunteer work cleaning the river with River City Waterway Alliance • Use of the American River Parkway
5. Please share your thoughts on what benefits you and/or others in your community would receive from a bridge that accommodates all modes of travel (automobiles, transit, bicycle, and walking) between north Sacramento and downtown/midtown across the lower American River. (Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on) • as part of a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes to connect the city to the burbs for those who don't want to drive everywhere
• Expanding light rail!!
• also safer bike and walking
• No cars, please.
• the bridge should be for pedestrians and bicyclists
• One step closer to light rail to the airport
• Increases safety by relieving some conges5on on business 80 • No cars, seriously
• Ac5ve transporta5on bridge would help the city achieve and even surpass its ac5ve transporta5on goal and reduce automobile conges5on
• I don't normally have any reason to go to Natomas. I think the bridge could be helpful for walking, biking and transit.
• No private automobile access, only walking, cycling and public transporta5on • The Northgate - Hwy 160 bridge replacement is a much beler alterna5ve. The Truxel Bridge project should be dropped.
• Beler flow during impairment of I-5
• I see a major concern regarding the traffic through CALOES - Public Safety Communica5ons. It would a major traffic hazard and cuing through the main occupied buildings of the agency.
• Safe traveling for bridge and pedestrians only (no auto) • The bridge will nega5vely impact the South Natomas neighborhoods and their residents by increasing auto traffic on Truxel through South Natomas. The bridge will encourage further auto traffic from the growing North Natomas to go down Truxel rather than I-5.
The South Natomas area is already impacted by homelessness and economic issues.
Addi5onal auto traffic and Light Rail will disrupt our residents and neighbor hood further.
• When the weir floods, there is no way to bike through, except for that road that connects to the 160, but that's even occasionally flooded and it's doesn't feel as safe to 13 bike down. (The trail floods if the weir floods.) It's also such a bitch to have to get on the 5 to get downtown.
• We don't need more paved roadways for cars
• need a bike connec5on that isn't subject to flooding
• reduced smog, greater exercise
• The bridge should not allow automobile traffic. It should be a bicycle, pedestrian and transit only bridge, with access for emergency vehicles. • I would like to see a no - car op5on
• Being able to bike away from cars
• Beler access to the park
• Only route downtown because the county is closing Discoevry Park more and more for concerts. It is the only safe way to cross the river by foot or bike. • No Cars!
• No personal benefits, but concern for climate implica5ons • Should only be open to transit (extend light rail), biking and walking. No cars! • LIGHT RAIL TO SMF!!!
• connec5on for the light rail to reach the airport
• 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, • Hopefully another way to reach the American River parkway when Discovery park is flooded
• I forsee a huge increase in camps and crime from homeless. We already see an increase year over year, having things stolen on camera, finding drug paraphernalia harmful to our children and pets.
• Mini motorcycle not freeway capable. Great on fuel and fun! • Good for light rail expansion
• More connec5vity for the en5re city would benefit everyone. • really if there is no light rail headed towards the airport going over the bridge, not sure it is worth the environmental damage to the parkway
• Bridge project should be accelerated. A construc5on start of year beyond 2030+ is too long to wait. Please fastrack this much needed piece of infrastructure! • It needs to have a red light and speeding camera though • Promotes addi5onal development of Richards Blvd. Sets founda5on for public transit to airport.
• We need more bicycle friendly crossings along the river • Will ruin neighborhoods with traffic and homeless from downtown. 14 • Avoiding seasonal flooding that would extend the season green and public transporta5on.
• Future light rail connec5on to the airport
• I don't see the point in adding another bridge for vehicles. Focus instead on the RT, bikes and pedestrians. We are trying to limit vehicle miles and provide other alterna5ves to vehicles so spend the $500m on beler public transport.
• This is a great idea and needed. Natomas is so cut off. Railyards needs to get developed next, but new housing in already being built and light rail is close to this proposed bridge.
• A route to downtown on foot when Discovery Park is flooded • Opposed to idea
• Acershock and other fes5vals.
• It would provide shelter for many gypsy camps beneath it • To ride bicycle over flooded Discovery Park
• We already have access through Northgate
• Cars and buses only, NO LIGHT RAIL
• I only ride an e-bike so I can't really get on 1-5 to cross the river. If there was a bridge I'd explore south natomas more
• Alternate route when there is an accident on i5
• But route Light rail on I-5
• I like the bridge proposal. I believe it will lead to a more walkable city • Public transit to the airport
• Beler community connec5vity
• A direct public transit line between Natomas and downtown. • Avoiding freeway
• easier than 160 to Northgate [current I5 alterna5ve]
• Light rail to the Airport
• more likely to use parkway trails for recrea5on
• More carbon pollu5on and more extreme weather.
• I'd rather an addi5onal bridge be elsewhere though
• Bike route when discovery park is flooded
• alterna5ve transporta5on that promotes environmental sustainability • Reduc5on of pollu5on caused by fossil fuels used for current routes • need to omit car traffic on this
• Improved sense of "connected-ness" for the people north of the river. • Light Rail extension to the airport
• Discovery park is flooded during certain seasons. Bicycles need a path other than the freeway
• HUGE benefit if only for bicycles, pedestrians, public transit • An alterna5ve route would be very welcome
15 • Escape from disaster such as flooding.
• More escape routes if Natomas floods (worst in Na5on since Katrina) • There is already a walkway through Discovery Park. But it’s dangerous due to druggies and unstable people living by the river. I won’t call them homeless as to not insult truly homeless people.
• Light rail
• A way to enjoy the river
• More ways to cross the river other than 16th Street and I-5. • A travel op5on that is independent of flooding.
• I don't see any benefits if vehicles are allowed on the bridge • I only see benefits occuring from a car-free bridge. There are too many cars, pollu5on, and traffic. We need more ac5ve transit, car-free, transit op5ons for a more healthy and safe future.
• When discovery park floods, you can’t really ride your bike across. Technically you can use I5 but that’s too dangerous.
• I do not support building a bridge that will increase the use of vehicles. I would strongly prefer that no bridge be built, or that the bridge is restricted to bikes and pedestrians only.
• would love RT in Natomas and green line extension to the airport. • Long term environmental and community benefits of expanded RT • Please don't priori5ze cars!
• Easier access to current work and future job opportuni5es, to medical needs, to entertainment and socializa5on. More direct transporta5on can be safer than depending on mul5ple bus routes or spending $$$ on Lycs, or riding in the dark. • Increased access to resources and employment opportuni5es • It will be a safer way to travel over the river when discovery park is flooded having to use the freeway in a wheelchairor even on foot is so dangerous • Public transporta5on
• It will add harm to our already weakened ecosystem. Plus provide easier access for more drugged out homeless to camp in Natomas. Please do not build this bridge. • new areas to explore
• Presuming light rail expansion, using that mode
• Consider limi5ng bridge access to transit and alterna5ve transporta5on modes only, like on 5llikum crossing on the Willamete river in Portland, OR:
hlps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing
• I see no benefits if there are cars on the bridge and there is no light rail leading to North Natomas and the airport.
• Light rail extension
• Improved access to businesses north of the river.
• Cars have plenty of op5ons to get across the river. This should be concentrated on bike/ped and transit routes
16 • Possible to bike when Discovery Park is flooded
• Reduces greenhouse gas emission by providing a reliable route to downtown • Increased noise and air quality, loss of habitat, wrong transporta5on strategy • Connec5ng South Natomas with Downtown would be culturally beneficial • No need for a bridge cause you can use Garden Hwy to Northgate to 12th St. • No possible benefits only increased traffic and conges5on, more headaches not worth the 5me money or effort.
• N. 7th areas one lane traffic each way - new buildings & conges5on. Not faster route • A walking and bike bridge could be great, but would be worried a light rail or auto use may be considered.
• When northgate floods
• Bike path during flood season
• Ideal for commu5ng to the new Richards Blvd State office building • Light rail to the airport
• An alternate bicycle/pedestrian route when Discovery Park floods. Current op5ons are on I5 or Pipe's Bridge near hwy 160.
• This would destroy a beau5ful park of the Parkway and should not be done
6. What concerns might you currently have with the future Truxel Bridge? (Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on) • It will be another car-centric piece of infrastructure (which we need less of) • So that cyclist don’t die
• Increased homeless camps being formed there and going into neighborhoods • Quality of connected streets before and acer the bridge to make bicycling and walking s5ll feel safe
• Increased traffic on Truxel and Garden Higheay
• motorists can use I-5 and northgate - adding a third op5on will only increase motor traffic
• Just build it quicker!!
• That light rail isn't included.
• It will affect the peace and quiet of our neighborhood, the safety of our community, the safety to our children, traffic nightmare on Truxel, unwanted dricers, property values will decrease, policing deficiencies, environmental hazard to the American River Parkway wildlife (deers, wild birds, turkeys, ducks, geese and plant life will greatl be affected), speeding and unwanted heavy traffic near and on residen5al streets. • That it would have light rail that expands to Natomas and SMF in addi5on to bike and pedestrian access.
• Induced demand from cars if car travel is allowed
• NO CARS
17 • That the bridge may priori5ze automobiles, ac5vely undermining the city’s goal of lowering regional GHG emissions, cost of automobile bridge would be extreme when compared to an ac5ve transporta5on bridge
• Making it only available to pedestrians/transit
• We need to get people out of cars. No more inducing demand pls • Homeless encampments
• A bridge for light rail to run up Truxel S. Natomas would be devasta5ng to the community. Lower housing values, impeding kids to walk to S Natomas library, basketball courts, dog walkers, bikers. It will also be a means for homeless to travel from Downtown to S. Natomas. Consider Northgate as light rail already exists on 12th street. • Concerned that cars will be allowed on the new bridge. Private cars do not need another op5on across the river
• Leing private vehicles on bridge. Private cars do not need to be on it • Ensuring that transit is not impeded by automobile conges5on • Physical and traffic safety of cyclists and pedestrians is a big concern. • Immanent domain taking my office building away, I would no longer have an office building to work at. (100's of other workers on Sequoia Pacific Blvd too) • How does it connect to Richard’s Blvd? Need straight connec5on. • Ensuring light rail traffic is priori5zed
• If Bridge is strong enough to carry buses, Then it will cost so much that you need to allow traffic to return enough benefit for what it cost. Some people do not realize this.
Also, to create such an environmental impact for a lightweight bridge, that would carry, only bikes would not be worth the environmental impact. People who say we need to be like Portland need to realize this is how we get to be more like Portland. • important to include public transit access across the bridge • I'm concerned that a bridge that accomodates private automobiles would increase VMTs, air pollu5on, traffic fatali5es, etc.
• Conges5on on the bridge, more traffic in this neighborhood making it harder for people who live here to get home. Traffic from the fes5vals.
• We would like to have easy Access to bikeway on leealong river • the truxel bridge where it is shown on the graphic will affect the amount of auto traffic on Truxel in South Natomas. There is already traffic that uses Truxel through South Natomas from North Natomas to get to Downtown. Truxel in South Natomas is a residen5al street with homes facing directly on Truxel and will encourage further more auto traffic if the Truxel bridge is constructed. Light rail addi5on on Truxel in South Natomas as a result of the bridge will disrupt the long 5me neighborhoods and residents currently on Truxel. Building this major structure will affect the environment of the American River Parkway. The Parkway is located in an urban area. Another major structure placed in the parkway with autos and light rail that brings in noise and pollu5on harms further the habitate.
• Crea5ng a space for more homeless encampments under a bridge 18 • Provides a conduit for the homeless to further infest our suburban neighborhoods • The focus of the bridge should be for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit than for motorists. We want to encourage more people taking alterna5ve transporta5on than driving their personal vehicles.
• Presence of homeless encampments
• Homeless access to neighborhood
• Bike lanes along Truxel Rd
• This area was not made for that much more traffic to be added to the area! Horrible idea.
• Exis5ng large homeless popula5on in that area
• Public transit geing stuck in car traffic. Public transit should be separated from car transit. Public transit, micromobility, and pedestrian traffic should be priority. • Focus on ac5ve transporta5on and not on more miles of cement you have to manage from vehicle use
• Inducing more automobile traffic/conges5on
• adding more vehicle lanes would make this a bypass for freeway traffic • Transit (Bus ; Light Rail) Connec5ons
• Adequate dedicated space for transit
• It would reroute traffic in ways that do not align with community needs, without providing a means of crossing which excludes automobile traffic. • The current op5ons offer car lanes on the bridge. Not only is this unsafe for light rail, bus, cyclists, and pedestrians, but it would also worsen traffic across downtown and north sacramento. It is important to remove the car lanes from this bridge so that rains and buses can have an easier connec5on to north sacramento and the airport to downtown whilst protec5ng cyclists and pedestrians.
• disturbance of Nisenan historic sites would be unacceptable • Influx of traffic to residen5al streets
• More crime in our neighborhood, more homeless, more traffic conges5on • The city can’t afford this. It can’t even get the I street bridge reolacement built and has a structural budget deficit that will last a long 5me
• Because of the increasing closures of Discovery Park (the only safe means for cyclists and walkers to cross to downtown, we need the bridge for access that the county is denying us more and more.
• Light rail addi5on up Truxel to SMF
• Having Cars on the bridge
• There is currently no reason to travel to the railyards, there should be more focus on expanding public transit especially light rail, this may just lead to induced demand of more cars on the road instead.
• easier for homeless to moving to the northside.
• Crea5ng a RT light-rail route to the airport
19 • In consistent with SMART growth direc5ons if North Natomas and land speculators are allow to develop out of UPA. Must ensure project reduces VMT (not increases)! Beler op5on is for NO AUTO traffic on bridge (and lower costs to construct). Use money for more in-fill development.rdevelopers
• Homeless people migra5ng from downtown to south Natomas. Blight. Crime. • it will make it easier for unhoused people to come into our neighborhood to camp • This project is a horrendous idea that will hurt an already struggling Parkway, and increase everything that is already nega5vely impac5ng the Parkway. • Crime
• That it induces car traffic. Keep it car free. Extend light rail! • Considera5ons for light rail expansion ought to be priori5zed. Right now adding more bridges for traffic eventually leads to conges5on that itself needs relief • Light rail capacity to extend service to the airport
• Ensure the light rail is able to expand into Natomas
• It’s bad planning, Sacramento needs more East/West op5ons. 5, 80, and Biz 80 are enough North/South for the 5me being.
• How will we avoid an increase in homeless popula5on?
• Opposed to an auto bridge through parkway.
• Traffic issues during the building of the bridge
• I forsee a huge increase in camps and crime from homeless. We already see an increase year over year, having things stolen on camera, finding drug paraphernalia harmful to our children and pets.
• Making sure that any public transit that crosses the bridge isn't affected by traffic conges5on
• We shouldn't make room for cars on this bridge. Natomas is very lacking in walkability, bicycle access, and transit access and needs to priori5ze these alterna5ve modes of transit instead. Providing another convenient route into Natomas for cars will only increase car traffic and increase the amount of deaths and injuries that come with it. • Residents in the area will fight hard against it
• Automobile traffic use
• The homeless taking residence on the bridge or under it poten5ally making it unsafe for pedestrians.
• Homeless popula5on in that area of downtown is extremely high. There is already a growing popula5on around Discovery park. The bridge could funnel more homeless to the American River.
• No private cars, and accomodate light rail, if light rail is too expensive then bus only + bikes and pedestrians. No cars.
• Speeding and people who run red lights already
• Making sure that lite rail is part of the plan.
• Addi5onal traffic impacts on Truxel
20 • Homeless encampments & ppl having more access to come into our neighborhoods and trash them via a bridge like this.
• Making sure there is a way for cyclists to get downtown when Discovery Park is flooded. • This bridge should include a path for light rail
• Poten5al to increase traffic on tributaries such as Richards boulevard leading to Hwy 160 in to downtown, May poten5ally create traffic jams there. • Existence of light rail line on bridge
• Crime
• Pollutants, noise, and hazards from traffic use of bridge. If this were a pedestrian, bicycle bridge only, then maybe. A bridge for autos, truck traffic is absolutely not a bridge we want added to this area.
• The safety due to the mass amount of homeless in the area and the need to clean up the drugs and human waste in this area
• Noise! Impact to communi5es in South Sac, I will never be able to turn on to Truxel, it's already difficul
• One more place for the homeless to create problems
• Ensuring that it can accommodate light rail
• Space for light rail to enter natomas
• It would be car centric
• plan for car use - Americans love their cars!
• access to ARP, direct access into DT, allowing big rig truck access, homeless encampments
• meth camps congrega5ng beneath structure
• Interconnectedness for cyclists and pedestrian to the American River Bike Trail and keeping the ARBT open during bridge construc5on.
• Conges5on on Richard Blvd is already bad as is. Adding this would make it worse. • more carbon emissions because we con5nue to be without good public transporta5on • The an5- vehicle folks will only make the bridge for peds and bikes! • I don't see the point. You can drive through Discovery Park or take 5. • Not using this opportunity to extend light rail
• feel strongly that light rail should be part of the bridge • Homeless using bridge as a place to set up tend and the trash and liler that is a result of homeless encampments
• This will eventually lead to light rail on Truxel and I absolutely don't want that. Also traffic will be congested during events at Discovery Park. • Use the money for funding more law enforcement and geing homeless out of our community.
• Taxes and thar money could go to other issues within Natomas • If we dont first mindfully address the infrastructure that would firs impact the aurrounsing neighborhoods, this is simply invi5ng a mainline from Richards blvd and 21 northern midtown area to innundate natomas. We alreadybhave northgate to downtown and a freeway. Discovery park also has an access thru line that is ocen closed. We have a bike trail. A bridge only dumps the recently incarcerated individuals from the county jail and the transients from midtown to have unfelered access to the south natomas and surrounding areas. I dont see the benefit. Truxel has always been congested during commute hours. This would end up being a project that sees know tangible benefit when north and south natomas are so self sufficient. And with the new costco going up, this would invite tremendous stress on an already stressful thoruoughfare, especially when a community center is right there and kids walk those sidewalks. This is family area, not a mainline to bolster commerce or relieve traffic conges5on.
• Light rail
• Traffic impacts on garden hwy
• The proposed alignment of the bridge south of the river will cause traffic conges5on on Richards Blvd. It should connect to 7th or 10th St.
• You are ging to put the lt rail right though our neighborhood despite us figh5ng it for 20 years
• 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. • Climate goals. Stop building more roads for cars.
• Making sure it is safe for pedestrians
• Room for light rail
• Crea5ng an addict highway between two major drug addict infested areas and a City Council that coddles them.
• Be sure to get OK from Save the American River Assoc + other conserva5on organiza5ons.
• inclusion of light rail
• Concerned that Truxel won't be widened to accommodate traffic and light rail. • Add light rail
• if it doesn't 5e into the Richards /17th street termial it would be a wasted opportunity to extend transit
• Public transit as Light Rail included in project so I can get to airport easier, than a bus, car, or taxi.
• Ensure light rail extension is included on the bridge • Light rail being placed on Truxel
• I don't think the bridge should be open to conven5onal automobiles. I think it should be reserved for public transit and pedestrians/cyclists.
• a harbor for homeless and transients
• Convenience, access and conec5vity for bicyclists
• No need for cars on this bridge! Costs more money and does everything we don't want to do - why do we need to cater to more cars?
22 • that you are spending money you don't have, that you are building a bridge while the streets of Sacramento are nothing but potholes and falling apart • Safety - will spread fire and floodwaters quickly; another avenue for criminals to spread crime
• improving the downtown side of the bridge to connect to Richards Blvd • Con5nuing and facilita5ng a car-centric approach to transporta5on when we need to center transit and ac5ve transporta5on.
• Improved transit to Natomas and the airport
• loca5on doesn't help me much. i want it further east
• If open to automobiles, would result in more auto travel • poten5al increase in homeless popula5on in areas that become more accessible • Most obvious and apparently overlooked is the gridlock this would cause on Truxel.
Considering the volume local residents have to face today, envision this in 2-3 years 5me, or whenever this comes to frui5on. Clearly not thought through. More ques5ons than answers.
• Increased number of unhoused in Natomas
• Totally unnecessary. People have easy access to the I-5 and having 15 to 20 stop lights to get to the bridge is ridiculously 5me consuming.
• The homelessness and dilapidated buildings make this an area I would never visit, though I see a benefit with the bridge I would not use it unless this area is cleaned up • The homeless living on and/or under the bridge.
• Ensure there is adequate auto capacity to accommodate traffic. • Terrible idea. Will bring more transients to natomas and we don’t need that! • Building more car infrastruce and inducing demand
• Do not want a new bridge with space for cars.
• Ensuring that public transit connec5ng to the airport is a priority • 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.
• Expanding homelessness problem even more into Natomas and damaging the river parkway with homeless people (not damage from building the bridge itsel). • That y'all will dawdle geing it finished.
• Greatest concern: including fuel-burning vehicles
• More ways for homeless to get from Richards to Truxel • i want to be able to use it for bicycling even in the winter when there is flooding around the river
• Need the green line to extend up to connect south and north natomas with other parts of the city
• route connec5on on south side of American River
23 • Residents do not want light rail going through TRUXEL. Voters have voted against light rail for the last 20 years. Yet the city keeps bringing it up. Have u seen 5 o’clock traffic on Truxel? Where exactly do you expect cars to go? No one is going to ride light rail.
The city has small buses that are acceptable. Your walking bridge would be more acceptable if it truly was a walking bridge and not a light rail project. • easy access for criminals in downtown to access the suburbs, and increase local crime.
Also creates a route of access for more homeless people into the suburbs from downtown
• Another connec5on to downtown. We have plenty already. • Encouraging more driving. I think we should look to the Tilikum Bridge in portland which is bike/ped/transit only. Cars are extermely loud and it's nice to come to the por5on of the river for quiet. Keep cars out, but support other forms of transit please. • unnecessary in that loca5on.
• There should be light rail on Truxel to get to Natomas/Airport • Ensuring the bridge does not become a constant shelter for homeless, cra5ng poten5ally unsafe condi5on for pedestrian traffic.
• Protected space for bike/ped connec5vity + light rail and BRT are most important.
Vehicles can head over to I-5 and the get into town via the freeway. Induced demand by allowing vehicles on the bridge changes increases the environmental concerns and does nothing for Sacramento's climate goals.
• Easier access for transients to enter this quiet family community that has many children walking to and from school daily
• Addi5onal access to discovery park
• Parkway plan does not allow a transit stop on bridge, but a transit stop would be excellent way to access lower Parkway e
• I want a beau5ful bridge
• Homeless people camping
• Addi5onal traffic in an already high traffic area.
• nega5ve impacts to Truxel, west el Camino, GH and Azevedo from increased traffic, tree removal,etc
• Ensure it has space and strength to accommodate dedicated transit (light rail or bus-only lanes)
• I am very concerned about increased vehicle traffic, noise, impacts to the American River and Parkway and surrounding neighborhoods, increased air pollu5on, increased nega5ve water quality impacts to the American River resul5ng from storm runoff, and construc5on disrup5on to traffic.
• construc5on taking too long.
• cost and conges5on of light rail
• NO AUTO LANES, need transit lane. AIR POLLUTION
• Loss of habitat and greenspace in an already exploited Parkway we cyclists are doomed to dir5er environment than is currently allowed on the lower Parkway 24 • How long it takes to accomplish
• Boa5ng on the American River. A new bridge needs to provide at least as much clearance as the Jiboom Street Bridge, which we cannot get past during 5mes when the river is running high.
• Experience of users in American river parkway/discovery park • Full separa5on of modes (transit from autos from bikes/peds) • Increase in VMT and GHG emissions.
• I love the idea of
• Easier access to commit crime in Natomas
• I feel that there has been more Environmental impact on the American river from all the homeless encampments on it
• Making it easier for homeless to commit crimes north of the river • Going from one congested area to another will require land acquisi5on and proper planning to minimize impact on the two communi5es. If this bridge will accommodate the amount of traffic your study seems to think it will, there will be a lot of disrup5on at both ends. It is a huge undertaking, but I think it is necessary. I think you should also include plans to clean up the American River Parkway under and near the bridge as part of the overall plan.
• Drugs and homeless
• Needs to be on northgate blvd
• Automobiles: speeding and reckless driving
• designed to support future light rail line
• Crime, light rail may be added, environment impact, cost, unneeded addi5on • Large homeless popula5on
• Too many people driving
• Impact on those working off of Sequoia Pacific & Richards Blvd. • you are puing a new bridge in but the rest of the city's streets suck and need repair badly before they implode
• Keeping homeless from sleeping on or under it.
• Too many cars
• encouragement of personal auto use if bridge is open to personal autos. • That cars will be favored in decision making
• It will destroy the exis5ng ease of moving onto Truxel from side streets in South Natomas. There is no benefit to a bridge that includes auto traffic. • Safe access by bicycle to bridge from home
• Public Transit will be hampered by automobile traffic • Homeless living under bridge
• Increasing emissions
• More unhoused people in our area
• Homeless camps, degentrifica5on
25 • Upgrading exis5ng nearby bridges for beler bike/ped use etc is a beler strategy • It will bring more crime to Natomas.
• I am concerned about not the bridge but about Truxel acer the bridge with lightrail • It will make more traffic on Truxel which is bad enough already! • Traffic , waste of 5me money and resources.
• My workplace is on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard and would be directly impacted by traffic directly in front of it. Sequoia Pacific is also severely prone to seasonal flooding. Please visit during rainstorms to observe the transforma5on of the street to "Lake Sequoia." • Cars, buses or Light rail may use it.
• It must include tracks for the green line
• More homeless shelters as if we don't have enough around the area. • Homeless transient
• There are already about 25 crossings of the Lower American River Parkway. • Allowing cars will induce more driving, especially because city has failed to commit to transit for Natomas (i.e. bus)..
• More cars coming through, I’m not a big fan of that. I’d like the bridge to accommodate everything but cars.
• Huge increase in traffic on Truxel as it becomes a commuter alterna5ve to I5. • Traffic and light rail noise up Truxel
• Making sure are on the bridge
• Please don't allow personal vehicles on the new bridge! Only train/bike/pedestrians. • It is a was of money and a needless destruc5on of the environment. • I work on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard and cannot imagine it handling that amount of traffic.
7. How would having a bridge that accommodates all modes of travel change current travel palerns?
(Note: respondents could select more than one response for this ques6on) • Increased homeless camps
• If the bridge accommodates cars, more people will drive, which goes against the City’s Climate Change Mi5ga5on goals.
• let's move towards safer streets, and "mixed use" doesn't seem to work • No cars
• A bridge along the freeway would be most beneficial for bikers or walkers who commute to work, and create a structure for lightrail to run along freeway with quicker access to airport or commuters to downtown.
• Hopefully more people would be willing to take transit, if available. • No all modes, NO CARS.
• Allowing for all modes of transporta5on would lead to a priori5za5on of automobiles as has been the case with most mul5 modal transport projects in the area. 26 • Every 5me a road is widened or a new road built, it seems to increase vehicle traffic • No one answering this survey is a public works employee. Why are you asking this? • If you include lanes for private cars, it will increase people driving at the expense of people taking transit.
• Not sure
• My commute would cause me to transfer my job outside of Sacramento due to Immanent domain taking my building.
• Give people another route op5on, could increase transit/biking if planned well • Avoid freeways/highways
• Safer for everyone
• Public Safety
• Transit access to airport cri5cal
• You would destroy an important part of the American River Parkway. • Some bike trips would be shorter. When discovery Park is inundated, the only bike and ped route Would be the new bridge. Also, emergency services would need the new bridge when I-5 is impaired
• You could make something that is much more wonderful and usable and realis5c for walkers and bikers if you don't include cars in the design.. • Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• "All modes of traffic" would have to be more than an unprotected bike lane • Pushing the homeless issue from Richards Blvd into Natomas will make our neighborhoods less safe to pedestrians
• Homeless concerns
• It is not a safe area anymore for anyone to be walking around unless that is their only way of geing around.
• If it is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, they won't use it. • Ideally, no cars, like Tilicum Bridge in Portland, an exemplar • I public traffic is not separated from car traffic, people will not take it as it is not a viable alterna5ve to driving.
• The focus must be on geing folks OUT OF CARS
• It would reroute traffic in ways that do not align with community needs, without providing a means of crossing which excludes automobile traffic. • Depending on how good of an op5on there is for different modes of travel, the most convenient one would be favored. If there aren't dedicated bus/light rail lanes and protected bike and pedestrian lanes, then people would drive. • I will take more trips since it will be faster and more direct. • More conges5on on Truxel, more noise
• It would be the only safe means to cross the river now that Serna and the county are closing Discovery Park all the 5me.
• It will change the nature of travel on many levels
27 • People would walk or bike more if there were no cars • if it there an exit for people to connect to the Parkway. and cars can goes to downtown. • I do not know.
• Generally we need to reduct VMT! Climate changes is real and already having massive impacts on life in Sacramento area! Need to integrate this under constraints of local CAPS and General Plans for climate zero carbon goals!
• If you want to increase flow into downtown, expand I5 - it would be substan5ally cheaper with exponen5ally less nega5ve impacts to the environment, neighborhoods and quality of life.
• Move some traffic off of 5
• Already mul5ple means of geing to and from Downtown
• The City will need to consider how this bridge will induce travel for all modes. Which will the City priori5ze? People, or cars?
• Much more inclined to walk or bike if driving was excluded as a mode of travel on the bridge
• Not sure of the change. I know there will be a change but it's hard to say what it will actually be at this point.
• This would be a bridge to nowhere, waste of money.
• *fewer, not less. Come on!
• Biking and walking across ARiver is difficult. A bridge with all modes of travel is best. A light rail serving Natomas would be great
• Less traffic
• Traffic is bad now, it will make it much worse and have a nega5ve effect on property values.
• Decrease traffic along I-5, Hwy 80, possibly por5ons of Garden Hwy, but may increase traffic along Truxel.
• This won’t change anything besides make it easier for homeless people to have another place to destroy and do drugs, etc. while at the same 5me providing easier access into the Natomas community. No thanks!
• This is a leading ques5on that skews data. Again not suppor5ve of auto, truck traffic bridge. Maybe pedestrian, bicycle bridge, but even that must be studied carefully. • I believe it would turn Truxel into a nightmare
• You are asking us to see into the future.
• Natomas needs more transit op5ons!!!!
• redirect traffic, might increase traffic on Truxel and decrease traffic on I-5 • it will mainly just be a scary place with homeless gyspys connec5ng an obscure part of downtown with the ghelo part of natomas. people will surge through there when the freeways are clogged causing traffic in neighborhoods.
• Everyone wins. I don’t think people would change mode of transporta5on. But the impact on traffic flow and city access would be hugely posi5ve. • cyclists and pedestrians are already at high risk from vehicle encounters 28 • Since it will end at Richards Blvd, it won't help anyone who has to get farther downtown.
It will also create more traffic on Richards Blvd.
• Adding Light Rail is stupid. More so than this biased survey • Way less conges5on on 1-5 for commuters during peak hours • Not using freeway 5 which is too congested passing by downtown • Include in bridge design features that complement natural beauty of American River & its natural history.
• I would say that more people would take transit but light rail is not funded to extend into Natomas, so probably very lille will change.
• I’m not walking or biking there un5l the homeless issues are addressed. Too dangerous. • spread out the traffic conges5on
• Fewer, not less
• These are specula5ons about convenience of walking or biking. • Just build it - its badly needed as another access
• Less people would drive on I-5 in short term, not clear in long term. • Would offer another op5on for local automobile trips between South Natomas and Downtown.
• Less traffic on I-5
• Slow the transi5on to a carbon free future.
• I expect you would see more pedestrian and foot traffic in the River District • Another bridge opens up an otherwise difficult commute. • Less vehicles on I-5
• Very lille. There may be certain benefits for S Natomas residents traveling to ‘Railyards/Downton. For those living N of I-80 they’d s5ll likely take I-5. • Safer op5on for pedestrians.
• Massive traffic backups entering/exi5ng I-5 and I-80 at the Market Place. Worst waste of money. Ridership figures clearly show lack of interest in light rail on Truxel. Read independent transporta5on reports!
• More people would save 5me by not wai5ng in traffic on I5 • This bridge would create more traffic in a neighborhood and even if its purpose is to create another op5on, it will also clog up and slow down commute 5mes. We have bus service and need more bus service.
• create more traffic
• Maybe RT busses would take that route too and avoid I-5 • the western parkway is unsafe. the bike crossings are risky. this bridge will let me ride south of the river again
• Less traffic on I5
• Great idea!
• If RT going down over river to Truxel is extended through Natomas all the way to Airport now we’re talking convenience.
29 • Less vehicle miles traveled.
• Not a lot will walk, biking is a bid deal. Especially at night the park is dark and unsafe. • Would cause more traffic. Again where exactly would cars go when light rail is blocking traffic. I own a home off of truxel. I’m proud to be in a nice residen5al area. The city wants to run this area down with light rail. No one wants to live close to light rail due to increased crime.
• Cri5cal to engage RT and ensure they will increase service along the route. • traffic reduc5on on other routes that are aging and too congested • It will alleviate traffic conges5on on I-5 and provide alterna5ve routes to downtown. • I feel like if we were to open the bridge to all modes of transporta5on it will eventually become dominated by cars, where as if it were strictly for walking, biking, public transit, etc. it would be most beneficial and have a longer lifespan. • i do think we should not be exanding car access.
• in the right place, downtown would be beler accessible. • no cars
• Unless the bike/ped is completely protected, then those on foot or bike will find the bridge unsafe for travel. Taking vehicles out of the equa5on helps all other modes of travel significantly.
• It would probably bring more cars to an already heavily traveled road possibly losing easement that act as a buffer for the many children that walk truxel rd to and from school. As well as parents walking with kids to the fort Natomas park and south Natomas community center. Making the area less safe for pedestrians • Building a bridge that includes vehicle usage will increase car usage and vehicle trafficand decrease bike usage and public transporta5on usage. • It should be dedicated to public transit and pedestrian biking and walking. • more people would use buses not light rail
• Transit only lane, no auto lanes.
• Thise neighborhoods you're dumping traffic into don't seem able to accommodate the traffic. More homeless people are going to migrate right into the park • Induced demand seems like it will raise VMT. It should priori5ze transit and ac5ve transporta5on users as much as possible.
• This will distrub property around Truxel and the people in the neighborhood. • It would make it easier to take public transporta5on such as the light rail that does not get interrupted when there are events in Downtown such as concerts or games When there are concerts or games RT buses are rerouted and it makes it hard to get to des5na5ons but the light rail sense its On tracks it does not get Rerouted which Is what happens to RT buses and it makes it hard to get downtown to entertainment eateries or work
• Alterna5ve route than i5
• Public transporta5on
30 • Would make traffic worse and would not help the look of our already declining south natomas.
• community connec5vity
• Since this won't be built for another 10 to 15 years, it's impossible to predict how people will be using their cars or public transporta5on, especially if there is no clean, reliable light rail.
• con5nued cycle-commu5ng to downtown during winter
• more commuters bypassing I5 conges5on by driving on secondary roads • The bridge and surrounding environment must be welcoming and safe for pedestrians and cyclists in order to increase alterna5ve transporta5on mode share • Eventual light rail access to downtown
• Less conges5on to going downtown
• Gee it will bring so much traffic into the area which is already bad and it will make a short cut for transients to come mess with our neighborhood! • Another way to back up traffic the distance between the freeway and the bridge is at most what a mile and a half.
• I'm not sure
• Nnn
• Conges5on if combine cars and lite rail. Problem on 12th now.lght rail needs be in own lane
• Beler winter access
• The bridge you propose is redundant to the adjacent 5/99. For bikes and pedestrians, we already have jiboom street bridge and northern Sacramento bridge. • This is on you to do a fair traffic analysis. In general making travel easier induces more traffic.
• A few people (such as myself) would bike more in the winter, but numbers are negligible compared to drivers shaving seconds to race downtown, including drivers from North Natomas. No increased use of transit because we are not geing light rail, and city has failed to make any commitment to increase bus service (which does not need a new bridge). Only pedestrians at this 5me would be the homeless. • serve as a piece for the new metro line
• More people would drive up to the point where both I5 and Truxel exceeded their capaci5es.
• Why are you asking a ques5on that has already been established by other mul5modal projects?
• Comple5on of Light Rail extension north of River is required for bridge to provide full func5onality. A guaranteed extension commitment is cri5cal before bridge op5on with light rail is selected.
8a. What do you like about Op5on A
• I like that bikes and pedestrians are separated from vehicles 31 • The least disrup5ve to the Amenican REiver Parkway • Accommodates all
• Protected bike lane and side walks
• It is safe for bikes and pedestrians
• Safety for people biking and walking with the barrier • Like it being the lowest cost op5on and that the shoulder is there for emergencies or if a car breaks down to not clog up traffic
• I love the physical barriers that separate peds and bikes from vehicles. Automobiles have other bridges to travel across, so the drivers who feel uncomfortable in a mixed use lane can try other op5ons.
• like physical barriers walker and bike
• Fully separate bike lanes
• Sacramento does not need to invest more in cars. This design appropriately places people first.
• Protected bike lanes
• I like the presence of transit, bikes, and pedestrians, with a space for emergency vehicles.
• Safe bike lane
• I don't like anything about it. Vehicles have two other routes to get into town - why make a third? Pedestrians and bicyclists need a good connector to Natomas, and visa versa. RT is a good idea. When you widen a bridge, for instance, Wal Ave., it only alracts more traffic. We want to move towards LESS traffic. • Op5ons
• Seems the safest op5on with the fewest cons.
• Low cost
• No automo5ve transit. Keep it safe and tourist friendly by allowing for a scenic gateway between North Sac and Downtown/Midtown. Allowing only biking and transit will make the bridge a des5na5on that would surpass even Tower Bridge. • physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians/cyclists; dedicated emergency lane • Sidewalks and paths are physically separated from rail and roads. • Safe for cyclists+pedestrians, accommodates emergency vehicles • Protected bike lane
• Priori5zes biking and walking.
• Smaller footprint
• Mul5 Purpose path, Transit
• Cheapest, lowest environmental impact, protected bike lane. • I like that there is a barrier for the pedestrians and bicyclists. I think discomfort for the motorist is good in this scenario. They should be forced to slow down on a mul5modal bridge.
• Nothing, there are cars
32 • It’s mul5modal
• Protected bike lane and sidewalk, public transit route. • I like the transit lane.
• It is cheaper
• Like physical separa5on of peds from traffic. Good connec5on to Jedediah Smith Trail. • Physical barriers separate Class I bikes from vehicles • Nothing
• This op5on has smallest footprint and lowest cost. Center median for emergencies and shoulders for breakdowns. Physical barriers separate pedestrians and class 1 bikes from vehicles, trail connec5on
• Nothing
• an extra pathway to get to north sacramento areas and the mul5person paths • not a fan
• I like that this op5on provides a physical barrier between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists. I can't imagine why this couldn't be incorporated into Op5on B as well.
• bike lanes
• Lower cost
• Nothing.
• narrowest & lowest cost
• Cost and trail access
• Sidewalk for pedestrians
• Physical separa5on for bike lanes
• Physically separated cycle lanes.
• Everything except the vehicles- there is no need to include cars. • Physically separated cycling lanes and walking
• Side walk separate from bike lane
• I like the barriers for the bike lane.
• There is a protected ROW for bicyclists and pedestrians. • That it allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on, & that physical barriers separate pedesrians and Class I bikes from vehicles. Both are important to me. • Physical barriers between people and cars
• Nothing
• Bikes and pedestrians are separated from traffic.
• Nothing.
• Nothing.
• I like the shoulders so cars can pull over and they also create more distance between cars and bikers/pedestrians. I like the dedicated emergency lane. Trail connec5on. • Physical barriers to separate bikers and pedestrians from vehicles • nothing.
33 • Transit going over bridge.
• physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • "Narrowest cross sec5on...
• Less impact on Sequoia Pacific Blvd buildings
• Center emergency lane
• Shoulders and bike lanes
• Separa5on of pedestrians and bikes from vehicles
• "
• A lille bit of something for everyone.
• Shoulders for break downs
• I like the emergency lane and the pedestrian barrier. • N/A
• I like the Sidewalk Path, and the shoulder
• The ability to bike and walk but then what about services once you are over the bridge? • nothing
• Like the separa5on of bicyclists and pedestrians with physical barrier from vehicles/transit. Cost. Center median for emergency. Mixed use lane for traffic/transit. • This survey is an embarrassment because it sets up a false choice that assumes the Truxel Bridge is the only choice. The survey should be forthcoming the Truxel Bridge would destroy a key natural area of the American River Parkway and that the true choices are between op5on 3 (Truxel Bridge) and Op5on 8 (Northgate/Hwy 160 bridge), and no ac5on. The American River Crossing Alterna5ves Study equally recommended Alterna5ves 3 and 8 for further review and concluded that Alterna5ve 3 was the most environmentally destruc5ve, yet your survey does not men5on this. The City should be more transparent and honest about this process.
• It's inclusive for all users.
• I like. Let's get this built. Seems like there's rela5vely few trade-offs and it's the least expensive.
• Lower cost and lower footprint
• I like the dedicated emergency lane.
• "Op5on A makes much more sense.
• All trails are shared by walkers and bikers. This should not be a major concern. • I feel that having shoulder space for vehicles is of importance to avoid major traffic jams."
• Lowest cost, trail connec5on
• nothing to add to the Pro's listed above
• nice for pedestrians and biked to have access on both sides os the bridge • Cost and less impact to exis5ng buildings may make happen sooner. Emergency lane is good since PD is on Richard’s and Kaiser Hospital coming to the rail yards. Connec5on to trail since I look forward to biking across the bridge. 34 • Vehicles and LT share same lanes
• It’s beler than what we have.
• I don't like it.
• The bike paths & sidewalk
• Transit would not stop traffic-reducing nega5ve view of rapid transit affect on driving. • "Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
• Lowest cost
• Less impact to nearby buildings on Sequoia Pacific Blvd • Center median for emergency vehicles
• Accommodates Class II bike lanes and a Class I trail* • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on"
• Bike lane opportunity but don’t like like of class 3 opportunity (should be only pedestrians and bikes-no vehicles)
• No light rail
• it's safe for everyone - peds, cyclists and drivers
• Physical barriers separate pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • The cost
• I like how everything is mixed together,
• It appears to be well ogranized.
• Love it. Protected bike lanes and a comfy shoulder? Solid • Are you kidding, single lanes shared by transit??
• I like that discourages drivers from using the mixed-use lanes and poten5ally crea5ng less car traffic.
• Least cost and space for vehicle breakdown
• The barrier.
• I like the use of the central emergency lane as well as the shoulder - I wish I had those in all bridges in the area! I like having a sidewalk and a mul5use lane, and I appreciate that there is one on each side.
• "center median
• shoulders
• bike lanes and trail
• mixed use lanes
• physical barriers"
• Low cost and minimal impact
• Protected bike lanes
• Makes space for all and has enough shoulder space for possible emergencies • Trail access
• It slows down the use of motor vehicles on this bridge who will not want to compete with public transit.
• Wall between bikes and auto traffic
35 • just make the bridge
• Dedicated space for cyclists and pedestrians
• Seems sufficient and easy.
• Nothing.
• Providing a Class I bike lane is most important part of this alterna5ve. This is such a long bridge that few pedestrians will use it. Therefore, conflicts with bikes likely not a problem.
• Nothing.
• Trails and lanes for bicycles.
• lane for bicycles. connec5on to bike trail
• Pedestrians and cyclists are separated from car traffic. • Walking on both sides of the street.
• raised and separated sidewalks and bike lanes, transit • Safest for bikes and people walking
• It's the lowest cost and safest for bikers and walkers. • "Less cost
• Less impact to buildings
• Shoulder"
• at least there's a bike op5on, albeit a terrible one
• Lowest Cost
• Physical separa5on between cyclists, pedestrians, and autos and light rail • Nothing.
• Bike trail con5nua5on.
• Physical barriers for bike lane
• Mul5purpose path with barrier is good.
• Separa5on of bike lanes and pedestrians from traffic with physical barriers is a nonnego5able necessity, and connec5on to the exis5ng trail is important. • Separate bike from autos. Pedestrian walkways on both sides of bridge. • The mul5-purpose path.
• Physical barrier from vehicles
• Narrow, so lower cost while s5ll providing good facili5es for all users without going overboard.
• Op5on A provides good bike and pedestrian access and incorporates transit. • Class I bike lane
• Accommodates transit and ac5ve transporta5on
• Class 1 separated bike path
• I like that the bikes are seperate from the cars, it is much safer, I like that there is a nice shoulder and emergency lane and that there is light rail • priori5zes safety of cyclists
36 • Has more op5ons
• all the pros listed above.
• I like the protec5on for bicyclists. Would this be cheaper? • A shoulder for cyclers and pedestrians and lanes for these groups are grouped together. • Use of space
• It includes separa5on between pedestrians (bikes included) and vehicles. • Physical barriers separate pedestrians from vehicles. • More pros than cons
• physical barriers between bikes/pedestrians and vehicles is essen5al for safe travel • The mul5 purpose path seems convenient for bicyclists and shoulders are good for emergency vehicles
• Cheaper cost
• Lowest cost
• It addresses all modes of traffic
• Designated shoulders and emergency lane. Cars and transit only share lanes on a bridge; people who drive downtown are used to it. I think it is the best choice since my priority is to move traffic across the bridge efficiently. • Something for everyone
• Sharing of of vehicle and transit lanes. Emergency lane. • N/a
• Physical barriers to separate pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • Nothing !! No bridge
• Best cost of the op5ons
• The smaller size
• Separa5on from cars makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. • This is the only op5on with a barrier for the bike lane • I like that transit is included in the plan, and that there seems to be ample room for emergency vehicle access.
• Lowest cost and impact
• Connec5vity to the Jedediah Trail
• Travel is available for all on both sides of the bridge. Barriers separate the people from the vehicles.
• Mixed use is my preference so we can have a more bike and pedestrian friendly route, I also like the space for emergency vehicles
• Op5on A is the safest because it provides fully separated bike facili5es. • Physical separa5on of pedestrians and bicycles from cars makes that mode of transit much more safe and comfortable and appealing
• Good idea.
• It is compact and accommodates all modes of travel while keeping pedestrians and cyclists separated from traffic
37 • i dont like it
• Enhanced bike/ped safety
• Lowest cost.
• Shoulder/e lane is a good idea for emergency situa5ons • Seems bike and pedestrian-friendly.
• Narrow and small
• Pedestrians and bikes separated so are kept safe.
• Space and extra protec5on for walkers and bikers
• Biking. Walking.
• Cars are not the priority on the road and there is designated space for other means of transporta5on.
• bike and walk modes of travel, but will need in-fill development close to both sides to make it likely people will bike or walk. Otherwise it won't be used for alterna5ve modes - only more autos and increases in VMT!
• Ability to get to new railyards and downtown
• The slower traffic speeds for cars, the segregated trail and sidewalk, and the lower cost. • Nothing
• Physical barriers and trail commec5on
• It accommodates all modes of transporta5on. It could poten5ally be used to connect light rail to the airport.
• A wall dividing the bikes from the cars is really helpful. Hate when painted lines are only protec5on.
• Dedicated emergency lane
• All of these op5ons are horrible. Widen I5 if you want to increase traffic flow capacity. • Protec5on for bikes and peds. I bring my bike to Am River and downtown bc it’s actually safer than biking in CH.
• The shoulders that provides greater space between bicyclists/pedestrians from vehicle traffic.
• I like the barriers and the op5on for pedestrian travel on both sides, this op5on is the most favorable in my opinion
• It accommodates light rail. Separated bike lane.
• Physical barriers between bikes and pedestrians and cars. Room for breakdowns without slowing traffic
• N/A
• Narrowest cross sec5on
• It accommodates all modes, with safety countermeasures for vulnerable users and emergencies. Drivers SHOULD feel uncomfortable so they go slow or stay away. Low cost and smallest footprint on the River Parkway.
• No
• The mul5-purpose path is separated from traffic by a concrete divider. 38 • physically separated mul5-use path
• "- Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
- Lowest cost
- Accommodates Class II bike lanes and a Class I trail* - Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
- Mixed-use lanes will help control the speed of traffic • "
• It's cheapest and makes the most sense.
• Compact and easier design
• Accommodates light rail and provides wide bike and walk lanes. • Center median for emergency vehicles , shoulders for vehicle breakdowns • Pedestrian access on both sides, cri5cal to connect to the American River Trail, more efficient use of space with transit and vehicles sharing the travelway, provides good emergency access, lower cost.
• The mixed use of lanes and the shoulder for vehicle breakdown • "Physical barrier between bike path and vehicles. Transit op5ons and emergency lanes.
JS trail connec5on. Mixed use lanes to control traffic speed. • "
• Nothing.
• Seems like the best design
• Covers all modes
• Lowest cost and smallest footprint while providing room for all transit types • The cost
• The only thing I like is that there is a bridge and it has light rail • Mixed use lanes, shoulders
• Very lille
• Totally separate biking op5on. I like this the most.
• This appears to have the best op5ons if vehicles break down to avoid traffic backup. • Transit & safe bike lane
• Protected bike lanes
• Mixed use lanes slowing traffic and limi5ng car use. Separated/class 1 bike lane is much safer than class 2.
• Lower cost
• Like pedestrian and light rail op5ons.
• Separated pedestrian and bike lane is safer. Focus is on public transporta5on. • Small footprint and low cost
• all of it
• Op5ons
• Addresses all concerns
• Use for all
39 • Inclusion of transit and bike/pedestrian path.
• The only good part about this design is that the pedestrian and bike lanes are physically separated with a barrier
• It accommodates everyone while being the cheapest op5on. • All the op5ons. Specifically the wide shoulder lanes for safety. • it'd be beler than what we have now
• Smaller footprint and lower cost, as well as more controlled traffic speed with the rail and cars together
• Allows for pedestrian and bicyclist use as well as transit. Bike walk is a great idea too.
This seems like the most safe for pedestrians and bicyclists too. • The lower cost and safety barrier for bike and pedestrians. • That it accommodates pedestrians and cyclists.
• Low cost, trail connec5on
• Separated mul5 use trail
• This is or B is the best.
• love the transit system and walking/biking
• all modes of transporta5on available to use
• smaller footprint
• Love how it accommodates bikes, peds, trail connec5on, and other transporta5on. • More op5ons
• Seems more direct that freeway
• Best
• I don’t
• Dedicated area for pedestrians and bikes where there's a barrier between them and traffic. Emergency lane that also acts as a buffer between each vehicle. • Op5on A serves everyone! It incorporates the vision to expand rail and other transit op5ons that connect downtown services and Natomas neighborhoods. Bridges are meant to connect and this does!
• " Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
• Lowest cost
• Less impact to nearby buildings on Sequoia Pacific Blvd • Center median for emergency vehicles
• Shoulders for vehicle breakdowns
• Accommodates Class II bike lanes and a Class I trail* • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Mixed-use lanes will help control the speed of traffic • Physical barriers separate pedestrians and Class I bikes from vehicles" • Can have Lt. Rail and cars.
• Bike/ped separated from vehicles.
• Cost and separa5on of bikes and pedestrians from vehicles 40 • Thenlow cost and smaller footprint are nice, but I can see this being congested do to ak accident.
• Great
• Sacramento is sorely in need of bike lanes that have barriers to protect from vehicular collisions. This will encourage more bike traffic and less vehicular traffic to downtown. • Dedicated bike trail with barrier
• Room for light rail and pedestrian traffic.
• accommodates mul5ple modes of travel.
• I can appreciate the "low cost", and "smallest footprint". • Mul5 purpose path
• I really like the separate path for peds/bikes that can connect with the ARP • Lowest cost.
• Like that there is a barrier between the sidewalk and mul5-purpose path and the shoulder / vehicle/transit lanes.
• Trail connec5on & separated bike lanes.
• "Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Physical barriers separate pedestrians and Class I bikes from vehicles" • A designated emergency lane
• dedicated mul5-purpose path and dedicated walking path • I like the connec5on to the Jedediah Smith trail.
• it is the smallest bridge
• Small footprint,
• I like all the Pros and that it has everything for a bridge like Emergency area • Nothing
• Barrier to protect cyclists from cars
• "Less expensive
• Protected bike lane"
• Lowest cost
• I like the walking area
• Its ok the train car sharing seems dangerous
• All the pros
• There are walking op5ons on both sides of the bridge improving access for those with mobility challenges.
• not sure
• Seems to accommodate the most people that want to travel in the mode of travel they want to use. Cost is important, and it's the least expensive. • lowest cost, separate sidewalk and mul5-purpose path. physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians
• Nothing
41 • Physical barriers for pedestrians
• The bike lane is nice
• too wide
• looks good
• Nothing
• Grade and barrier separa5on between pedestrians/bikes and vehicle traffic • I like the thought of maximizing all the different types of people and transporta5on modes.
• The mul5purpose path and barriers to block pedestrians • Nothing.
• Emergency lanes and shoulder
• Good protec5on between pedestrians, bikes and vehicles • Nothing
• Dedicated, protected (from auto traffic) bike lane - should be clearly marked as such. • Bike lane separa5on with physical barriers
• Protected travel for pedestrians and bikes.
• Plenty of room for everyone to use it safely.
• Smaller size, physical separa5on ot bike/pedestrian lanes from traffic • I like the separate emergency lane
• Not much.
• More bike lane access and mixed use lanes
• The cost and the minimal environmental impact.
• Lower cost; physical barriers between vehicles and pedestrians/bicycles; shared transit/auto lanes - no issues on 12th street
• Separated bike lane
• Nothing
• Least expensive and has an emergency lane
• A physical barrier between bikes/pedestrians and cars. • None
• Separate pedestrian and bike space
• More transit op5ons.
• Nothing
• To me, this makes the most sense and there will be a lot of waste of space when the transit isn’t using the bridge. The shoulder gives folks room to move over to let light rail or emergency vehicles.
• Makes space for as many modes of transporta5on
• Physical barriers between pedestrians/bikes and cars. • no
• All modes supported
• Dedicated sidewalk for pedestrians.
42 • Lowest cost
• Transit is apart of the plan
• cars are included
• "lowest cost
• dedicated emergency lane"
• Mul5-purpose path
• Bike lanes
• "Physical barriers separate pedesrians and Class I bikes from vehicles • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on"
• Love the protected bike lanes, along with the trail access. • Emergency lane
• Best op5on with more pro than con
• Looks well engineered
• The is a barrier for pedestrians and cyclists. Separate emergency lane • connects to bike trail
• Nothing
• Bike lane is separated from motor vehicles.
• Physical barriers are nice to encourage biking.
• Nothing, seems to be too much for area.
• cycle use
• Nothing. Terrible idea.
• lower cost
• Nothing, terrible, cheap op5on - delete this, do it right. • mul5modality
• I don't like it.
• Separated lanes for bikes/peds
• Beler than nothing.
• It includes light rail
• Allow varies transporta5on methods to be used at the same 5me, which I like. • The variety of ways to cross the bridge.
• Accommodates different bicycle speeds, faster on class 2, slower on mul5ple use class 1. • Prefer mix use, gives people more op5ons to select what transporta5on is best for them • Nothing..
• I like the separated bike lanes and sidewalks, and the light rail lines. I support minimal lanes for cars, to prevent this from making Truxel even more of an expressway than it already is
• Very good
• Dedicated sidewalk for pedestrians.
• The physical barriers that separate pedestrians and Class I bikes from vehicles. • Mixed use lanes control traffic
43 • like separa5on of bikes and peds from vehicles
• Connects to the bike trail
• None of it. Waste of taxpayers money.
• Nothing. I would be trapped on my street due to trains and too much traffic. It is already difficult to turn off of my street on to Truxel. Truxel is the only outlet from my street. • Mixed use
• Center median for emergency
• I dont like the idea period. I fail to see how spending this money on a bridge would benefit the community when current infrastructure and business development is sorely needed.
• Bicycle Access.
• Greater safety for pedestrians & cyclists
• I like that emergency vehicles have their own lane
• Cars
• Protected bike lanes
• Smallest footprint, physical barriers between cars and pedestrians • Sounds good
• Low cost.
• Sidewalk and bike lane.
• Low impact and cost
• no
• transit possibility
• I like that there's light rail tracks and bike lanes
• Physical barriers protec5ng bicyclists and pedestrians, modula5on of speed because of sharing traffic lane with transit. Like the emergency lane too. • Great except for the Lt Rail
• I don't like this op5on because a car or train breaking down could impair access. • Protected mul5 use paths are very safe.
• Two way paths for bike traffic
• Two op5ons for cyclists. Lowest cost.
• The center median for emergency vehicles.
• That it meets everyone's needs
• N/A
• Bicycle lanes and pedestrian trails
• The connec5on to the bike trail.
• Access for cars, bikes, and pedestrians
• It is more prac5cal than the other op5ons.
• "Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Physical barriers separate pedesrians and Class I"
• I like that it has walkways on both sides, but where are the bike lanes? 44 • Meets basic needs. Trail connec5on is good.
• Many modes of transit!
• Has everything
• low cost
• physical barriers, smallest footprint
• Like the shoulders and the space between the car/transit lanes. • Physical barriers to separate pedestrians and Class I bikes from vehicles as well as the shoulders for vehicle breakdowns.
• Least expensive=most likely to be built soon
• Low cost and mixed used lane
• "The emergency lane. As a Kaiser pa5ent I worry about emergency vehicles coming from the north trying to reach the planned new railyards hospital during the acernoon rush hour on I-5.
• Normally I would say that bikes and peds need to be physically separated, but it is hard to believe that at any given 5me there will be large numbers of peds and bikes on this bridge so it would probably work. Dilo for the car and transit lanes. It would seem that the arrival of light rail cars and buses at the bridge would be well spaced out due to their schedules. The mix of transit and other vehicles wouldn't seem to present that big a problem.
• If op5on B is possible, I like that best, but if money is not available for the more expensive op5on, I certainly rather have this op5on than nothing--it seems workable. " • Protected bike area
• Beler access for emergency vehicles
• Nothing
• Cheaper
• Mul5-purpose path
• efficient use of bridge with cars when no light rail on bridge • Class 1 bike trails
• Lower cost
• Not much
• I like the mul5-purpose ideas that will incorporate different modes of travel. I like the shoulder.
• seems safer than op5on B; smaller footprint; center median to accommodate emergency vehicles; connects to Jed Smith trail; least expensive op5on • Everything
• Physical barriers separate pedesrians and people on bikes from fast moving automobiles and transit
• Smallest footprint and therefore probably the least impacul and affordable • "Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
45 • Lowest cost
• Less impact to nearby buildings on Sequoia Pacific Blvd • Center median for emergency vehicles
• Shoulders for vehicle breakdowns
• Accommodates Class II bike lanes and a Class I trail* • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Mixed-use lanes will help control the speed of traffic • Physical barriers separate pedesrians and Class I bikes from vehicles" • protected mul5-purpose path
• Looks good - build it
• I think it encourages use of public transit and pedestrians/cyclists and discourages automobiles.
• Lowest cost and trail connec5on
• Not much
• Not much
• Lowest Cost, connec5on to exis5ng trail infrastructure, • One lane for vehicles
• Low cost, connec5on to Jed Smith trail.
• "lowest cost
• less impact to nearby buildings and businesses
• "
• Separate lanes for bikes would be safer
• Adequate separa5on between transit/auto and pedestrians/bikes • Mul5purpose path and transit
• Nothing
• that vehicle traffic is buffered on both sides from walking & biking • Love it
• Bikes
• Physical barriers will separate pedestrians and Class I bikes from vehicles and it is the least expensive op5ons
• Direct route to downtown. Saves on exhaust pollu5on.
• Center median and road shoulder
• Physical barrier between vehicles and sidewalk/ shared use path. • Nothing.
• I like that it’ll include like rail
• Nothing
• I like the protected bike/pedestrian pathway.
• Nothing
• NA
• I LOVE the k-rail protec5on for bikes and pedestrians. 46 • Light Rail, separated and designated bike path
• "EMERGENCY LANE
• Why have mul5purpose when walkers can use the sidewalk??" • Transit is included. Pedestrians and bikes are separated from cars. • Lower cost and Jedediah Smith Trail connec5on
• It would at least provide another op5on across the American River with the smallest footprint. Offers access to the bike route network.
• this looks like the best op5on
• the mul5purpose path separated from automobiles
• Nothing
• low cost
• Separa5on for bikes and people
• Lots. It’s nice.
• I like having the extra route
• Dont like.
• Separa5on for ac5ve transporta5on, extension of light rain • bike path, pedestrian access, car access.
• Low cost
• All the pros; Probably least expensive
• Narrow footprint and has physical barrier for walkers and bikes. • It is compact and is probably the least expensive op5on • I like it
• Walking each side of bridge. Ideal
• Ability to have Light Rail to the Airport - a #1 priority! • sidewalk and path
• "Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
• Lowest cost
• Less impact to nearby buildings on Sequoia Pacific Blvd • Center median for emergency vehicles
• Shoulders for vehicle breakdowns
• Accommodates Class II bike lanes and a Class I trail* • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Mixed-use lanes will help control the speed of traffic • Physical barriers separate pedestrians and Class I bikes from vehicles" • I dont
• All modes of transporta5on can cross
• The shoulder that disconnects bicycle and pedestrian travel. • NOTHING
• Nothing in par5cular.
47 • Safe to bike and walk
• Bike lanes and separate space for safe pedestrian use • Cost
• All forms of transporta5on are accommodated.
• Both
• Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
• The emergency lane in the middle
• Incorporates all aspects;transit, recrea5on and commuter traffic. Least expensive. • Mul5 mode
• center median for emergency vehicles., physical barriers separa5ng pedestrians (you have a typo, by the way) and Class 1 bikes and a separa5on between the peds and bikes. • nothing
• i like op5on a the best
• Defini5ve emergency lanes
• "Bridge will exist, which is really all I care about. Shoulder for break downs is nice • "
• Makes fuller use of space.
• Nothing! Awful idea
• All the ways it can be used
• Secluded bike/walk path.
• concrete barrier and shoulder between vehicles and mul5purpose path • addi5onal emergency lane; combined mul5-purpose path
• Barrier between mixed use lanes & vehicle lanes
• Nothing
• "Pedestrians and bicyclists have physical barriers between them and cars. • Emergency lane and shoulders allow emergency vehicles to get through. • Most cost effec5ve.
• Smallest footprint/least impact on environment."
• Separate lanes
• Please see response in 6 other.
• Good separa5on for bikes and pedestrians from traffic • All types of travel (biking, transit, driving) is accessible • Nothing
• This is a good op5on. I like that transit and vehicles share the lane. Light rail is probably never going to South Natomas, nudged out by bus rapid transit. Sharing the lane makes best use of the infrastructure. I like the connec5on to the American River homeless campground. I think peds and bikes sharing one side is a good idea. • I like the shoulder for both emergencies and break downs. I like that pedestrians have an op5on for dedicated and then there are barriers between bikers and drivers • Emergency Lane; protected bike lane/sidewalk; shoulder for breakdowns 48 • I like the separa5on of pedestrian/bike lanes. I also like the shoulders. • Physical barrier between bicycles and traffic
• keeps bikes safe from traffic
• Separa5on of bicyclists from automobiles with a physical barrier. • "I like this op5on the best. Having area for breakdown and emergency vehicles is a major factor.
• Also physical barriers between cars and pedestrians and bikes will reduce injuries and deaths."
• Simplis5c and not quite sure what ‘mixed use lanes’ entails. • There is a protected bike lane and pedestrian walkway • Nothing
• The Jedediah Smith trail connec5on.
• Physical barrier for cyclists and pedestrians
• The pedestrian sidewalk.
• I like op5on A the best because it protects pedestrians and bicyclists the most. Fuck the cars because the environment needs less drivers and Americans need to work out more. • Allows everyone to get from Natomas into downtown easier and quicker. More efficient • Bike lanes and walkways
• i like that it includes all modes of travel
• concrete barriers between bicycles/pedestrians and other transit • Physical barriers separa5ng vehicles from bikers and pedestrians. Center median for emergency vehicles.
• I do not like this op5on
• Smaller footprint and slower traffic which will be more accommoda5ng to pedestrians and bikers. Also, physical separa5on of bikes from traffic is good. • Cost
• All of the Pros
• Like emergency lane, physical barriers between pedestrians and cars. • Supports mul5ple modes of travel and does so with smallest footprint. If there is light rail as long as it can be out of car traffic's way when it stops for pickups on or before/acer the bridge to not impede car traffic, then I like the shared lane. Bike trail connec5on.
• I like that there are barriers between vehicles and pedestrians. I like that it’s a Smaller footprints and possibly more easier and cheaper to build. • nothing
• Lower cost, smaller footprint, lower speed, safer and more pleasant for those walking and biking
• Mixed-use lanes have worked extensively in many European ci5es. • It provides for pedestrians and bicyclists.
49 • I like that it addresses all modes of transporta5on and bikes/less are physically separated from vehicular lanes.
• I like that the dangerous travel op5ons (cars) are kept away from the vulnerable. • Mul5-purpose path, sidewalk, shoulder, and the emergency lane • Bike separated from other vehicles.
• Safe walking away from cars
• Nothing
• Op5on A is my favorite one. We need this bridge with mul5ple modes of transporta5on, but we also need to preserve the natural beauty of Sacramento. As humans we can adapt to the various lanes with 5me and we have an obliga5on to protect and cohabitate with the fauna & flora of the area. Also, it will have a great flow with the current traffic in Truxel.
• There's an emergency lane.
• Narrower but s5ll far too wide
• Lowest cost. Physical separa5on for bike traffic. Connec5vity for bike travel. • Physical barrier for cycling is import as we see con5nued deaths when people are in painted bike lanes.
• Nothing. No one who owns a home here wants light rail. • Separated bike/ped lane
• Physical barriers and center median for emergency vehicles • Nothing
• Expanded rail connec5vity
• Protec5on for pedestrians and cyclists
• Smallest footprint, less damage to parkway
• Easy to implement, hard barrier between bike lane and cars • Looks good.
• Everything
• nothing
• All points listed
• None
• I like the pedestrian lane
• Que las barreras fisicas separan a los peatones de los vehiculos. • I like the shoulders for vehicle breakdowns.
• physical barriers; shoulders; lane for emergency vehicles • I like that there’s a physical barrier between cars and pedestrians. • Low Cost
• There's extra space for the shoulders in case somebody breaks down • love the dedicated bike lanes with physical separa5on. • Small footprint/ low cost
• not applicable
50 • "It reasonably gives other modes of transporta5on a chance against automobiles. • Connec5on to Jed. Smith Bike Trail is a plus"
• Dedicated emergency lane
• Protected bike and pedestrian lanes.
• the protec5ve space and shoulder for pedestrians, the emergency lane, the transit • The addi5on of the Shoulder allows for visible distance between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles. This makes everyone feel safer
• Cost and that barriers separate cars from bikes and pedestrians. • A fully protected bikeway and space for peds to safely cross • Low cost
• I very much like op5on A. I especially like the emergency lane. • I don't like it. The bridge should be car-free.
• Good for cost and might get approved easier.
• Mul5 Purpose path and sidewalk for runners as well. Best overall design. • Most likely to be affordable
• The bike and pedestrian lane
• Barrier protec5ng bikes and pedestrians
• Allows for trains
• Low cost
• Slow speed design and full bike access both direc5ons to ART. Obviously this design wins in cost benefit analysis as it is lowest cost and safest. I don’t think priority should be on making drivers comfortable, the bridge should priori5ze walk, bike, transit over drivers.
Drivers can use 5 if they don’t want to share lanes with light rail. • Bikes have their own lane with a separa5on from cars. • I like that it's narrow and the lowest footprint and cost. • It's smaller and more efficient and cost effec5ve
• Physically separated bike and walking. Has transit. Lowest cost means it may actually be built cut out the cars to make it even smaller and easier to pass through and get funding for
• Bicycle safety
• Separate emergency lane
• It appears to have the least environmental impact.
• Median for emergency vehicles
• Only the mul5-purpose path is ok. Mixing cars with transit just means transit gets stuck in the same traffic as cars. This discourages transit uses. I would not ride transit if it gets stuck in the same traffic as cars.
• Cost
• I like that this includes pedestrian and bike travel. I am concerned that bikes are not separated from pedestrians and think they should have their own path. I am neutral 51 about public transporta5on traffic, with a strong preference for train traffic over bus traffic.
• There's a separated lane for cyclists.
• Mul5-purpose path and transit lane. physical barrier for pedestrians. • Has transit and some bike infrastructure
• allow jedediah smith trail connec5on// barriers separate peds and bikes • Best op5on, less cost, u5lize road for cars and transit, ample walking and mixed use space
• Bike, pedestrian and one dedicated transit lane would have less impact on air pollu5on and the parkway.
• Bikes and people are separated from auto traffic
• The sharing of lanes with autos and mass transit. Connec5ng the bike lanes to the bike trail.
• Emergency lane
• Bicycles and pedestrians are separated from traffic.
• I don't mint mixed use lanes
• Grade-separated protected two-way bikeway and sidewalk on both sides • Cheap and simple
• All
• physical barriers for pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • The 2-way bikeway that’s separated from vehicle traffic • Solid barrier between humans and vehicles
• Looks safe for pedestrians and bicyclists
• "Narrowest cross sec5on and smallest footprint
• Lowest cost
• Less impact to nearby buildings on Sequoia Pacific Blvd • Center median for emergency vehicles
• Shoulders for vehicle breakdowns
• Accommodates Class II bike lanes and a Class I trail* • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Mixed-use lanes will help control the speed of traffic • Physical barriers separate pedesrians and Class I bikes from vehicles" • I like one side being a mul5purpose bike lane while the other side is sidewalk only. I like the light rail addi5on. I like the wall separa5ng cars from bikes and pedestrians. Clear emergency lane.
• Mul5 use.
• Separate bike and ped paths.
• I like the pros men5oned
• Everything! Looks like there is good allowance for all types of vehicles and pedestrians, as well as public transit and emergency access.
52 • bike path
• Public transit should never share the road with private transit. Public transit should have dedicated lanes in order to minimize travel 5me and avoid traffic. • I like the Pros- Why can't you do this above or below ground. • Bike trail connec5on.
• Smallest footprint, least poten5al nega5ve impact to the American River Parkway.
Op5on for pedestrian travel on either side of the bridge. • Lowest cost and that it might actually be built much faster then. • So many pros! I vote for this one!!!
• Transient delays due to shared space with cars
• low cost. fastest to build.
• Cost and smallest footprint.
• I like that mixed use lanes will slow cars down. This is necessary to protect pedestrians and bikers from being killed by cars that are moving too quickly. I like that it connects to other trails, this is essen5al for making it a viable alterna5ve travel op5on for non-auto drivers. I assume that the smallest footprint would also have the smallest environmental impact, so that is also important.
• Maximizes use in a smaller footprint.
• I liked that it has all modes of transporta5on and a protected Bike lane and that you can bike on both sides
• Lowest cost
• The pros you list.
• Cheaper
• Connec5ng to parkway
• Dividers between traffic and pedestrian/bike riders increases safety. • Barriers to protect pedestrian, shoulders and median
• We don’t need a bridge on truxel to separate south natomas • Dedicated bike lane
• Yes, I believe less space will naturally slow down drivers • Physical barriers between traffic and bikes/pedestrians. • separated and dedicated path for bikes. room for transit. • 1st op5on to support
• n/a
• I love the bicycle lanes and the mixed use lanes.
• Wide shoulders and emergency lane would reduce backup in case of accident or stall • "- Less Impact to nearby building on Sequoia Pacific Blvd. - Physical barrier separa5ons"
• separa5ng traffic from walk/bike is good
• It's stupid to put pedestrians and bikes so close to moving vehicles 53 • The guardrail between the shoulder and mul5-purpose path/sidewalk. Separate emergency lane.
• Protected class 1 bike.
• narrowest cross sec5on
• Low cost and doesn't favor car travel
• I like the physical barriers protec5ng pedestrians. This is the best of the two bridge op5ons, and hopefully for once the city considers the op5on that best protects pedestrians.
• Bikes & pedestrians are protected from traffic.
• Separa5on between vehicles and people
• Everything
• Good separa5on between bikes/peds and cars
• I like the physical barrier between the cyclists/pedestrians and cars. • "I prefer this op5on of the three. The fact that it is difficult for automobiles is a posi5ve. • The city council needs to reconsider the 160 alterna5ve (#8 I believe) or a bridge without automobile traffic."
• The fact there is a dedicated emergency lane so emergency vehicles aren't held up by the unavoidable traffic at Garden Highway and El Camino. • Safer for pedestrians and bikes; least impact to connec5ng Blvd • Safety for pedestrians and bicyclist, trail connec5on, space for emergency vehicles and shoulders for vehicles
• Safer for bicyclists.
• The bridge, avoid i-5, less freeway usage to get downtown • Physical barrier separa5ng cars from pedestrians
• Mul5-purpose path. Emergency lane
• Cost
• I like the separated bike/trail
• Op5on for fully protected bike lane.
• Least space/least convenient for private vehicles
• Cost, access to JS bike trail
• I like that it has op5ons for mul5ple forms of transit in a smaller footprint. Having visibility of public transporta5on is a reminder that light rail is an alterna5ve op5on for travel.
• Lowest cost and slows traffic on bridge. Most likely to get completed. • Pedestrian, cycling are protected from cars. Also like they light rail can travel in the bridge.
• Allows Jed Smith trail connec5on. Good separa5on from car lanes • Narrowest op5on
• Puing vehicle and train in the same lane leaving more space for other needed uses. • best dor cyclists
54 • I don't mixed use lanes
• Looks reasonable to me
• protected bike lanes
• Not much
• It’s narrow, physical barriers
• Physical barriers separa5ng cyclists and pedestrians from traffic, smallest footprint and impact.
• Nothing
• Pros
• Protec5on for cyclists
• I like to protec5on between automobiles/transit and pedestrians. • I prefer op5on A. Barrier for bikes and pedestrian traffic. Narrow, less environmental impact.
• Good accessibility for important modes.
• Narrower cross sec5on and footprint
• I like the special emergency lane in the middle.
• The shoulder allows a more direct travel path for cyclists, without having to use the mul5-use path. This is how I would use it. Overall this is my favorite of the three configura5ons because it creates a good op5on for faster cyclists (the shoulders) and a good op5on for slower/child cyclists (the mul5-use path). • "What I like about op5on a is seems spacious and safe, • Although posi5ons and bike users share, there’s a barrier protec5ng from cars. " • Light rail will bring nothing but crime. The system takes you nowhere you want to go.
There is a reason Elk Grove and Folsom do not want extensions it brings nothing but crime.
• Walking/biking is safe
• Less traffic interrup5on from light rail and autos sharing a lane • strikes balance between mobility op5ons and safety/traffic disrup5on • Seems to be best op5on and allows for emergency vehicles • Smallest footprint. Controlling speed of traffic. Access to bike trail connec5on. • There is a shoulder and separa5on
• I don’t like op5on A
• Mixed use lanes will help control speed of traffic
• Physical barriers.
• Nothing
• The emergency vehicle lane
• Lowest cost and mixed use lanes
• Mixed use travel sounds good
• Not much.
55 • This is the best op5on. I like that it is the smallest footprint and lowest cost, making it more likely that it can actually be built.
• Too narrow. Conges5on. Too slow.
• Grade separated bike and pedestrian lanes. Emergency access to bypass traffic and collisions.
• Cost and lowest impact.
• Lowest cost
• I like the barriers between bike lanes and cars
• N/A
• It's lower cost
• Barrier to protect pedestrians and bikers.
• It is very compact and s5ll allows for mul5ple modes of transporta5on to safely cross the river.
• "Full separa5on of ped/bike lanes for safety
• Emergency lane
• Mul5 purpose path"
• Path and sidewalk op5ons, and emergency lane
• Best
• N/A
• Covers basic needs
• It will help control traffic speed and reduce impact of stalled vehicles. I like the barriers separa5ng autos from ped and bikes
• Accommodates mul5ple people/modes of transporta5on
• It’s probably the best economical op5on and most versa5le in respect to lane design. • Nothing.
• Cost, separated pedestrian/bike from vehicle, break down shoulder. • Dedicated emergency lane. Raised divider to protect pedestrians/bicyclist from motorists.
• I like this op5on
• "Overkill. Too large a project footprint. Redundant to 5/99 and to the bike/ped crossings already in place.
• See my answers to previous ques5ons. You haven’t included an alterna5ve that is transit only. That alterna5ve could include class III shared bike/ped path but again that’d be redundant to Jiboom and No Sac River. Originally the talk was transit only." • Physical barrier separates car traffic from human-scale transporta5on. • Nothing.
• Physical barriers separa5ng pedestrians and Class 1 bikes from vehicles. Dedicated emergency vehicle lane.
• I like that bicyclists and pedestrians are fully separated from other modes of travel • mul5 modal transporta5on
56 • Don't like it.
• It includes all modes of transporta5on with the smallest footprint. I think a smaller footprint is important because I worry about the animals on and around the river, as well as building a big busy eyesore full of cars.
• Bike lanes are adjacent allowing cyclists to turn around if needed. Physical barriers separa5ng cyclists and traffic.
• Nothing
• Physical barriers to protect pedestrians and bicyclists from motorists. Small footprint.
Connec5ons to the bicycle trail.
• I like the shared lane between transit and autos. Poten5ally smaller bridge footprint. • Minimal impacts to surrounding areas
• All the "Pros"
• I like the smallest footprint, access to Jedediah Smith trail, speed of traffic will be controlled, and physical barrier between bikes and vehicles. • Physical barrier for pedestrians and bikes
• All modes
• Lower cost.
• This seems nice
• K-rail provides physical sepera5on from cars.
• barrier-protected bike and pedestrian lanes
• It's all a bad idea
• Link to exis5ng bike trail and space for emergency vehicles. • I like that the bike lane is separated and protected. • I hate it
• it has the smallest impact and lowest cost. I also like that it has a lane for emergency vehicles only and that transit and vehicles share a lane. • Physical barrier
8b. What do you dislike about Op5on A?
• Hate it. Shared use for transit is terrible and does not work. And bike lanes need both more buffer and green space would be nice on the bridge • No dedicated mass transit lane. Also, I would like this to be pedestrian/biking/mass transit bridge only. No personal vehicles
• none
• None
• Mixed use lanes is a bad idea. It will severely limit the capacity and efficiency of light rail • Please remove the private cars from the transit lane, they'd ruin the walking/biking experience. Separate sidewalks and bike lanes, please.
• May cause transit issues for LR riders
57 • Cars will slow down transit unnecessarily. Transit should have its own lane on the new bridge.
• Sharing the lane with transit and cars can be difficult to drive on • Transit delays will make using transit less appealing for most people. I think it'd be more efficy if it was closed to cars and was a transit and ped/bike bridge only. • with now so many electric bikes beler to separate bike from walkers. don't like car and transit on same lane. point is to have light rail not be same lane as cars traffic will delay rail.
• Do not want cars
• There are cars. Why are there cars?! Why do they need a shoulder? The cars would hinder transit.
• None.
• Does not incen5vize public transit. Forces light rail to move at speed of car trafffic. • Cars. The noise, smell, and threat to bike/ped lives makes cars unwelcome interlopers in our space.
• Mixed cars and trains are incredibly slow. It negates the benefits of avoiding traffic on transit
• Mixed use transit lanes will mean the light rail is stuck in traffic nega5ng most of its benefits.
• Cars delaying trains
• It won't work. Motorists won't respect the bicyclists or the pedestrians. They'll use it like a racetrack, the way they do with 160 and 12th Street coming into town. • Safety for bikes and pedestrians
• Transit delays could deter folks from taking light rail. • Pedestrians are not separated from bikes. There are plenty of op5ons for cars to cross this stretch (at other loca5ons along the river) this should be a bridge specifically for ac5ve transit, no cars. Eliminate the car lanes and this is perfect. • No automo5ve transit. Keep it safe and tourist friendly by allowing for a scenic gateway between North Sac and Downtown/Midtown. Allowing only biking and transit will make the bridge a des5na5on that would surpass even Tower Bridge. Bikes need their own lane!
• more poten5al for accidents between vehicles
• Sidewalk and Mul5-purpose path are on opposite sides, having drivers and transit share the lanes can hinder progress on Green Line construc5on • Why would pedestrians use the bike lane if there is a separate sidewalk for pedestrians? • shared lane impact on transit
• The community in South Natomas does not want Truxel Road lightrail nightmares. A lightrail bridge can be built to run along the freeway on one side of the freeway near the train sta5on, and build a pedestrian/walker bridge on the other side of the freeway which would provide easier green commute.
• Light rail and cars on the same path might cause addi5onal traffic. 58 • Pedestrians not separate from bikes; emergency lane seems unnecessary • Risky for pedestrians
• car traffic causes rail delays, beler to have separate lanes for ped/cyclists. • No need to include travel lanes for cars
• Unnecessary to include vehicular traffic
• The access of cars allowed onto the bridge.
• Class 1 bike lanes arenot effec5ve. In par5cular if there are gaps in con5nuity. • Cars, do not need Vehicle lane they have 16th street and I5. We need public transporta5on and walk/bike lanes
• Those shoulders are way too big. What is their purpose? If there is an emergency services lane in the center, there is no need for such a large shoulder. Motorists will no doubt use that for travel or going around the light rail and that puts everyone in danger. I think this concept should be used, but reconsidered. The shoulders should be reduced and the bicycle/pedestrian paths should be expanded AND have barriers. If possible, there should be mul5-use paths on both sides, not just one narrow sidewalk and one mul5-use path. Also, the shoulders give too much space to the motorists which will make them feel more comfortable with speeding.
• Cars should not be included in this bridge.
• There are cars
• Wasted financial resources on side shoulders. Mixing of vehicle traffic with public transit will make public transit inefficient and tardy.
• Building the bridge with transit only lanes would be cheaper for the city and reduce traffic conges5on.
• It’s a mixed use lane. Cars and transit share the road. • Mixed bike/ped. Dedicated Emergency lane seems wasteful. Shoulders seem very wide.
Vehicles are going to speed when no LRT. Mixed flow not good for transit schedules. • This will just end up being something that people only drive across because it will be dangerous to walk or cycle.
• Pedestrians not fully separated from bikes
• Vehicle traffic. The bridge should be limited to the light rail cars, pedestrians and cyclist. • Why bother mixing trains and cars? There'd be lille reason to take the train. • Not needed
• the train over cars
• Cost
• "I don't like the idea of isola5ng a sidewalk from other ac5ve travel modes. People using that sidewalk might feel more vulnerable to crime. I wouldn't be surprised if most pedestrains ignored the sidewalk and instead walked on the mul5-purpose path exclusively.
•
• I also don't like the idea of mixing transit and general vehicle travel in a single lane. This would make transit sucep5ble to conges5on and discourage people from riding transit." 59 • vehicle traffic
• Clashes between bikes and pedestrians
• I've seen this in the Bay Area and share travel for all becomes untenable. It will result in more accidents and deaths. I'm totally against this bridge going up S. Natomas. This is simply a method to connect to the airport and bring more people downtown. Leave our commuity out of it!
• No public transit
• Too wide, mixed use vehicle and transit lanes, vehicles means more environmental impact for the river and may worsen traffic approaching the bridge • Public transit sharing a lane with cars. Public transit will get stuck in traffic. • Cars sharing a lane with public transit.public transit will get stuck behind cars in traffic.
Car should not be allowed on the bridge at all
• Including vehicles will not encourage more sustainable modes of transporta5on as habitvehicles should not be included. • Public transporta5on sharing a lane with private vehicles • Sharing the vehicle lane with transit. High poten5al of traffic conges5on • None.
• The intermixing of private vehicle traffic with transit is unacceptable. A few dozen private car drivers should not slow down hundreds of people on light rail trains. • It would be beler if pedestrians were fully separated from bikes. • Transit delays
• As with all recent "progressive"designs, the motorist, who pays for all this in road tax gets the worst treatment. Bike lanes are a dream, I see almost nobody using them. • My biggest concern is that the light rail vehicles will get stuck in traffic which will discourage people that might have otherwise taken transit. Op5on A just seems an5the5cal to the project's objec5ves and is not truly mul5-modal. The driver-perceived lane widths, made larger by the added shoulders and emergency lane, will encourage speeding which will make this space unpleasant for cyclists and pedestrians from a noise standpoint. Also, there might be minor conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists in the shared space. I would support this op5on if bikes/peds had separate spaces and only emergency/light rail/transit vehicles were allowed on the bridge (personal vehicles could take the other exis5ng op5ons).
• Vehicles and transit sharing lanes would create more risk hazards than separate lanes. • Light rail and vehicle accidents bound to happen more either because of mismatched speeds/braking or drivers who won’t share the road.
• If it's the same width as Op5on B, then there's no point for mixed lanes. But if you could eliminate the vehicle lanes, you could get rid of the shoulders and build a narrower, less expensive bridge. (Cars make everything more EXPENSIVE) • Cars will drive in the emergency lane
• Pedestrians not separate from bikers, but it's a minor concern. • Not enough vehicle lanes.
60 • I would rather have a two way bike only lane instead of sharing with pedestrians. Also, the lightrail running with traffic in the same lane concerns me. • mixing vehicles and transit could slow transit down, connec5vity of bike lanes (not having on both sides can create disconnect if entering/leaving from sidewalk side) • "Pedestrians not separate from bikes
• Poten5al transit delays
• Mixed-use lanes are not a favorite of mine"
• No concerns.
• Looky Lou
• N/A
• Keep the Light Rail and vehicle traffic separate both 16th and 12th have issues sharing the road however, it is ok
• Lane sharing with transit.
• wasted space, light rail and traffic should not share lanes • Mul5-purpose path for bikes and pedestrians; mi5gated by the pedestrian pathway; • The Truxel Bridge was the most environmentally destruc5ve of the alterna5ves assessed in the City’s study. This project should be dropped and Alterna5ve 8 should be persued. • None
• NIMBYs opposing the project and or the cost preven5ng construc5on. • Not a fan of vehicle/transit sharing lanes. Could lead to traffic backup if wai5ng for train • I want light rail to be priori5zed and not slowed down by car traffic • I don't like the mixed vehicle and transit lanes, I foresee a lot of traffic delays that will impact both types of users. I feel like the shoulder space could be beler u5lized for wider bike or pedestrian paths.
• There’s too much space for bikes overall. It could actually If be less safe for bikes if police vehicles could not patrol the class one facility as well As in other alterna5ves. • Not fully separated with physical barriers and could easily create delays • I do NOT like driving 12th St. where the transit and automobiles share the lane. This looks to be similar. The shoulders are likely to be used by cars trying to pass traffic. • it would take so many people switching to bike/ped for the interac5on to be a real concern. i don't think that really a problem on any bridge in sacramento with shared pathways.
• Transit reliability and consistency impacted by automobile traffic conges5on. • None. Traffic conjes5on when light rail crosses through. • Cars and public transit share lanes. We already have rela5vely low ridership due to the infrequent and ocen delayed public transit available.
• There could be issues with pedestrians and bikers.
• Driving in the same lane as transit stresses me out
• Pedestrians sharing with bikes can some5mes be scary. 61 • You can go narrower and provide more space for bikes and peds by elimina5ng the breakdown shoulders that I assume are required since you are allowing cars. So don't allow cars, reduce the size and increase the quality for bikes and peds. • Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• No light rail
• separate light rail from cars. keep cyclists and pedestrians in a separate and protected lanes.
• The mixed transit and car lanes will slow down transit significantly. • Transit should never be in the same lane as cars, the reason why SacRT has low ridership is due to low speeds/headways due to puing cars on a higher priority than transit. This city has built enough copy paste suburbia and strip malls when we could have been like Midtown/Fab 40's for the majority of the city, with a mix of mobility uses, cheaper housing costs because of density, and lower traffic due to higher public transit ridership. • Never mix autos and trains in the same lanes.
• This may be a bit of bitch for motorcycle riders who don't do well going over train tracks • Poor design, shared lanes.
• The op5on is focused too much on cars. The roadway dedicates too much space for cars and less for pedestrians and cyclists. Cars may speed.
• Only one narrow bike lane for shared two-way travel.
• I wouldn't personally feel comfortable using the walkway unless the separa5on or barrier was much beler.
• pedestrians using both lanes at one 5me
• Pedestrians and bicycles sharing path may lead to accidents and may impact people's desire to bike
• Car conges5on
• If transit and cars are together a lot of drivers who are in a “rush” will use shoulder lane to by pass slower transit buses and causing a possible accident • None
• People driving on the shoulder and in the emergency lane to pass public transit vehicles. • Cars sharing lanes with light rail
• just make the bridge
• Combined walking and bicycle path
• Environmental impacts and cost
• Don't like the delays for transit caused by car traffic. Why not consider an alterna5ve with no car traffic. This would substan5ally reduce the size of the bridge and costs, and will help achieve the new General Plan's ac5ve transporta5on and climate policies. • "More improper parking along Garden Hwy and Truxel during events at Discovery Park. •
• Don’t like missed use lanes as it causes confusion amongst drivers. " • No car free space.
62 • too crowded, too car-centric, busy, safety concerns in small mul5-purpose path (and mixing cars & transit). Actually, aweful op5on in so many ways. Would be an embarassment.
• pedestrian and bike use same lanes
• Public transit will be impeded by drivers causing possible delays. Cyclists and pedestrians have to share space. The emissions from cars will create unsafe breathing condi5ons. • None
• Needs two lanes each way for traffic
• See what I like in previous answer
• 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.
• How wide is mul5 purpose path?
• Drivers don't know how to share the road with transit. I can seeing it being a nightmare. • Pedestrian not separated from bikes
• Bike and Pedistrian safety
• I prefer an op5on (not listed here) that does NOT include automobile traffic. The new bridge should only be for walking, bicycling and rapid transit (with emergency vehicle use).
• Bad design.
• Remove light rail. There is no need for a brige simply elevate jiboom access above water level - this does not even require a structure. Build a bridge by sac state and run elevated expressway in arden, use trans dollars wisely. • Mul5-purpose paths where pedestrians and bikes share space. Poten5al transit delays • The light rail will get affected by traffic a great deal. Schedules won’t be useful anymore. • It includes automobile traffic, which the bridge should not do. Please consider a plan which priori5zes ac5ve transporta5on and transit to the exclusion of car traffic.
Including mixed use lanes could interfere with transit and be detrimental to the project on balance. Using transit to slow down traffic by making drivers uncomfortable is a benefit for traffic safety, but does not help keep transit effec5ve. • Mixing LRT with auto and truck. Mixing pedestrians and cyclists. • Too much traffic if average vehicles can cross if not a transit vehicle. • Sharing space between bikes and pedestrians but would be fine • inefficient transit service with shared lane.
• Op5on A allows for private vehicles to get in the way of transit and worsen traffic conges5on.
• Having cars + having pedestrians and cyclists share a lane • Mixing bikeway and pedestrians is not ideal. Mixing vehicle traffic and light rail is not ideal.
63 • Emergency lane in the middle makes it hard to get to and is dangerous for emergency personnel. Beler to pull off to the shoulder.
• bikes should have their own protected track
• None
• Transit delays because of vehicle traffic.
• I don't like the bikes and pedestrians having to share the same path. • Transit should have their own right of way and not be slowed by traffic. • Same as Cons
• None at this 5me.
• Cost
• none
• I would not want to share the lane with transit. I'm already an anxious driver • Emergency and shoulder lanes are a waste due to infrequent use • None
• None
• Uncomfortable for drivers to drive on lanes with rails. • "Something for everyone, but they're all together.
• Drivers geing uncomfortable with mixed use lanes is a cannard. They want to drive without ""thinking"" about it. It's why they hate round-a-bouts. They have to observe and nego5ate with others in the space and they'd rather just race by at 50 mph • Sharing of bike and ped can be an issue for bicyclists in a hurry but this is not a deal breaker."
• No train.
• Should be bike and walk space on both sides with flow of traffic. Should be strict speed limit.
• Vehicle and transit shared lanes
• Poten5al transit delays associated with shared lanes. • More traffic , more conges5on in our neighborhood.
• Possible transit delays
• Cars sharing lanes with transit means more confusion, difficult to drive on light rail tracks.
• Cyclists do not share well and create dangers to pedestrians. Separa5ng them would make it safer.
• That it won't be built fast enough, like all op5ons. I have low confidence in the city's ability to create meaningful change in a reasonable amount of 5me. • I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along the bridge, • Pedestrian and bicyclist separa5on
• Rail and cars NEED TO BE SEPARATED FOR SAFETY. Mixing the two is a formula for accidents in the longer term of the decades to come.
64 • A train breaking down/geing into an accident would be devasta5ng. Why not make both sides mul5-purpose paths?
• It can be confusing to share auto lanes with transit, I prefer them to be separate • Traffic jams
• Having cars on the bridge is unnecessary.
• Emergency lane seems superfluous with such wide shoulders • Transit and car traffic being the same might be a concern. • 1 lane for car traffic in each direc5on can be very annoying when you’re stuck behind someone driving slow for no reason
• Sacramento does not that many people walking. we can shrink the one of the side walk and add car path.
• Poten5al conflict between trains & cars
• Mixed use of lanes may be confusing and dangerous.
• Wasted space
• Traffic will interfere with transit. It's not clear why the sidewalk and mul5purpose path are on opposite sides of the road. Why do we need BOTH wide shoulders and an emergency lane?
• Conges5on due to light rail and driver unfamiliarity with mul5purpose lanes. • "People are running red lights coming off and going onto Hwy 5 on Garden Hwy by Truxel.
•
• Also was an accident recently at Garden Hwy and Truxel. •
• Also way too many speeders on Garden Hwy!!! I think some are going 60 MPH or more. •
• ALSO—-
• THERE ARE LARGE FLOCKS OF WILD TURKEYS so please help them!!! •
• And for Emergency Lanes that will absolutely not work because drivers will drive in Emergency lanes.
• You can put up all the signs you want, threaten fines, Etc. but drivers will s5ll drive in Emergency Lanes!
•
•
• "
• Bikers ocen mow down walkers when there is no explicit separa5on, transit would be delayed by cars because they would be sharing the same lane • None. Keep the speed limit slow.
• If the transit infrastructure is not properly implemented, would traffic build up because people assume cars would be the best means of travel.
65 • Auto traffic will likely increase VMT which is in direct conflict with zero carbon goals for addressing the immediate and long term impacts of global warming climate change! Must integrate this bridge concept under legal constraints of local CAPs andGPs. If auto traffic is allowed, greenfield development will lilkely increase and North Natomas traffic will increase VMT- not consistent with efforts to address climate change mi5ga5ons and adap5on strategies of in-fill and stop of sprawl.
• More conges5on on Truxel
• The mix of pedestrians and bicycles.
• I don’t want light rail because it alracts homeless
• No cars please
• Transit should have its own unimpeded lane of traffic. • Sharing bike path with ppl walking can really discourage biking. • Too few lanes, mixed use lanes, uncovered pedestrian/bike paths • All of these op5ons are horrible. Widen I5 if you want to increase traffic flow capacity. • Transit delays from stupid drivers
• Placing vehicles and transit in the same lanes.
• Should be more iconic in design
• Bikes can run people over
• Crime, vehicle use, light rail use that we do not need nor want. • Poten5al traffic delays due to shared lane
• Not a fan of mixed lanes, especially autos in the rail ROW. How can we incen5vize public transit when it's stuck in traffic? The shoulders AND the center emergency lane seem a bit extraneous.
• Cars
• Feels like a lot of wasted/under-u5lized space in the shoulder. The light rail running with lanes of cars might be confusing for some drivers.
• Increased traffic and the money could be used elsewhere in Sacramento • light rail stuck behind personal vehicle traffic. Significant space dedicated to occasional uses of broken cars and emergency vehicles. Very narrow sidewalk reduces comfort levels and safety of pedestrians.
• - S5ll allows vehicles (ideally would be light rail)
• None
• Traffic with light rail
• Pedestrians not fully separated from bikes
• none
• Single lane either direc5on will get congested over 5me. Impa5ent drivers WILL start using the shoulder/emergency lanes to pass unless heavy traffic enforcement is present raising poten5al for accidents.
• Trains and cars should not use the same lanes.
• Cyclists pedestrians sharing pathway; poten5al for serious accidents 66 • Take up a lot of space
• Sharing lane with light rail
• I prefer dedicated bicycle paths and dedicated transit lanes. • Cars should be separated from transit or not allowed to take the bridge, walking should be separated from bikes
• Only one vehicular lane each direc5on. mixed pedestrians and cyclists • "1. More homeless in Natomas
• 2. Pedestrians in the road on the bridge
• 3. Pedestrians in the road on Garden Highway
• 4. Pedestrians in I-5
• 5. No transparency in the cost and money used to construct the bridge • 6. Nepo5sm in the contract for the construc5on
• 7. Another bridge for homeless to live under and set on fire • 8. Slower longer travel 5me on Garden Highway
• 9. How does this fit with light rail using Truxel to get to the airport • 10. This is a Red Herring to distract from the real problems facing the city " • Rail over the lane sucks because the lanes are short for cars and because rail will be hindered by traffic.
• Na
• None
• Transit delays
• Pedestrians and bikes together
• Shared bike/pedestrian lane is uncomfortable for both. • Mul5 use path has more separa5on from vehicles
• Narrow and uncomfortable for bikes
• Opposed to auto bridge through parkway.
• Some drivers may use the shoulder or emergency lane for their own purpose. • none
• None
• Is it possible for Sac drivers to be able to follow these new lanes? • None
• "I have several concerns with this bridge op5on:
• - Requiring cars and light rail trains to use the same lane in each direc5on increases the likelihood of a collision between the two modes, and adds to driver discomfort from having to share space with a train.
• - The presence of cars on the track would likely result in speed restric5ons for the light rail, impac5ng travel 5mes for both cars and trains and making the train look less compe55ve than it could be.
• - Mixed lanes can impact the frequency of light rail trains that can cross the bridge, crea5ng a problem for a hypothe5cal Green Line LRT extension. 67 • - This bridge can be an example of crea5ng a walkable, ac5ve transport solu5on for traveling into Downtown/a future Railyards development. However, Op5on A s5ll makes car travel a definite priority, impac5ng the inclusiveness of non-car travel. • - Pedestrians would be discouraged from congrega5ng on the trail side due to the presence of rela5vely-fast moving bikers, and they could be further inconvenienced from having to use the sole sidewalk side of the bridge depending on how this connects to exis5ng streets at either end."
• Transit and vehicle sharing lanes.
• Transit should never share a lane with cars - this is very basic. Cars just block the trains and slow the service down. Op5on A would work great if you just eliminate any car access (and maybe make the bridge less wide as there would be ample emergency vehicle access via one shoulder or emergency access lane) • It would ruin the American river parkway
• Transit delays aren’t ideal.
• No concerns.
• mixing peds with cyclists isn't ideal. public transit geing hung up by car traffic isn't ideal.
• Lack of separa5on between pedestrians and bicycles.
• Sharing transit with automobiles will poten5ally slow and make transit less effec5ve.
Automobiles also already have bridges available to use which seems counterintui5ve to put them on this bridge. This bridge seems to be aimed at helping mobility issues with bikes, pedestrians, and transit. The more use this bridge gets from those groups, the less cars will be on I-5. CA-160 seems to be free from gridlock most of the 5me as well, cars can s5ll use that bridge too.
• Vagrants making it unsafe to use realis5cally.
• Not being enough Lanes for cars since it is a shared lane with transit. • Transit delays
• Does not priori5ze transit
• No bike-only lanes, Pedestrians are not fully separated from bikes. Wide shoulders encourage speeding.
• The wide lanes might be too accommoda5ng, leading to speeding. The shoulder seems unnecessary for such a short stretch.
• same lane for cars and transit
• I don't think acommoda5ng cars is necessary
• I don't think both shoulders are necessary for breakdowns given the short span of the bridge, the emergency lane serves that purpose. Maybe able to save cost. A large physical barrier separa5ng peds and vehicles isn't needed. Just a curb. • Having transit lane merged with vehicle lane
• None
• Sharing with public transit
• None.
68 • it seems so confusing. There are many bike and car accidents because of lanes confusion.
• Cars are in the same lane as rail and transit. This could block or delay traffic if issues arise. Bikes should be separated from pedestrians (vice-versa). • Pedestrians are not fully separated from bikes
• The mixed bike lane. Lt. Rail might get in the way of cars. • Driving will delay transit.
• Mul5purpose use lanes for bikes and pedestrians may cause some issues. • See above
• Feasible
• Pedestrians on the bike trail
• Light rail should have dedicated right of way/lanes.o • bike lane only on 1 side of bridge.
• Transit needs to be kept separate from vehicle traffic. • Rail and car lane should be separate
• My concerns would be the flow of traffic with the mixed use of the lanes. As stated "delays associated with shared lanes". This may lead people to con5nue using the older routes.
• Mixed lane use
• An Emergency lane seems like a waste of space? Emergency vehicles can use the shoulder if necessary.
• None, there are vehicle and rail lanes now in Sacramento and people do fine for the most part. The pedestrian and bike lane may be a lille dodgy. Why not put all pedestrians on the narrow sidewalk side?
• Shared vehicle and transit lanes can be problema5c, whereas designated lanes for each would allow for a smooth flow of traffic and transit simultaneously. • "Mixed-use lanes may be uncomfortable for some drivers • Pedestrians are not fully separated from bikes"
• Public rail and automobile traffic could nega5vely impact one another • auto lanes will lead to cars on the road which will lead to inevitable auto conges5on • Having light rail and cars share the same lane slows both modes of transit down and will reduce use of the light rail.
• Mixing bikes and pedestrians is a poor design. Remove the vehicles from the road en5rely.
• Mix use lanes with cars, SF has some like this and I hate it. Causes traffic etc. As long as the lite rail doesn't interfere with traffic then it's all good. • Accidents/people geing hurt or ran over
• Pedestrians could get hit by cyclists
• How do bikes connect on either end? A bike track needs good connec5on someone riding in the opposite direc5on of auto traffic doesn't have to cross busy street 69 • Not sure if an emergency lane is necessary and seems like a waste of space • None
• Cost/benefit I think the train needs its own path
• Pedestrians not fully separated from bikes
• Light rail trains would get stuck in traffic and would be blocked any5me a vehicle was disabled in the lane.
• seems clulered
• It's the least expensive, and that worries me that they may skip on parts and quality of parts. Also, I believe it will increase the traffic on garden highway, which on a good day is ugly.
• vehicle and transit sharing the same lane, can see this quickly becoming an issue • Environmental impact, noise, cost
• Conges5on in case of vehicle breakdown or accident. Poten5al wrong way driving. • The transit lines will make it difficult for cars to cross the bridge crea5ng bollenecks and traffic issues. The bridge would be beler without light rail. • sharing with transit
• no concern
• Transit delays due to sharing space with automobiles. • It may be too much going on. I hate sharing car lanes with transit lines. If this transit lane is the future light rail going to the airport, then plan for the future and dedicate light rail lanes.
• Possible traffic delays. I like that the lanes are mixed use so it will take up less space, but it may slow down traffic.
• none
• The en5re bridge proposed is deep concern.
• Transit is shared with car traffic, no protec5on between bikes and pedestrians • There’s already a bridge to the River District off Northgate Blvd. • none
• Pedestrians disrup5ng bike lane flow
• Wai5ng for transit to use lanes may slow cars and cause backups • The shared transit lanes and the fact that the bike lane is so close to pedestrians • How many homes would need to be torn down to accommodate this plan? Would it mean a reduc5on or eliminate Fort Natomas or the public library? • Safety for pedestrians and bikes
• Possible breakdown of transit vehicle will severely impact traffic; vehicle breakdown or accident not moved will severely impact transit
• Might be too small to handle a large volume of traffic, will probably have traffic jams with Acershock and Golden 1 events.
• Waste of funds
• Too much wasted space and would encourage illegal passing and speeding by cars 70 • No clear path for bikes and pedestrians
• I have no concerns. Put in more bridges over the AR and you will have less conges5on and less pollu5on.
• Light rail mixing with traffic will slow down the trains making them less efficient and less desirable. The only way people will use transit is if it is faster/more convenient than driving.
• Too many issues with shared lanes. Have you driven here?!? • Single lane each direc5on isn't good, should be mul5ple lanes for traffic • Seems like it will take a long 5me to build and gain approval. • Sharing the road with transit lanes is asking for trouble. • Is it enough space for it all to work well
• none
• No dedicated space for transit and bike use on just one side • Mixed use with light rail and cars could be an issue
• Conges5on leading to fatali5es
• Unused shoulders, and shared transit lanes. Too lille space for pedestrians and cyclists • need more lanes for cars, dont have lightrail use same lanes as cars • transit delays
• I don't see the need for an emergency lane.
• Shared path with light rail
• "Pedestrians are not fully separated from bikes
• Poten5al transit delays associated with shared lanes
• "
• Hate the shared vehicle and transit lanes, cars would take over immediately and cause conges5on.
• Vehicles and transit sharing same lane
• Costs too much
• mixing cars and transit
• Transit and vehicles share lane assuming transit is rail transit. • Bikes and pedestrians are together.
• I do not want to have a mix lane and drive with a train. It is stressful, especially when you have “rogue” drivers that don’t follow the rules of the road and are aggressive.
Please no.
• Bike lane not separated from pedestrians
• Light rail would lose it's u5lity if it is slowed down by traffic. More people will drive s5ll. • Added traffic filtering through Richards Blvd that is already impacted. • Shared transit and vehicle lanes only in both direc5ons doesn't seem feasible for the amount of traffic that would be possible
• more carbon emissions and Sacramento's lack of interest in reducing carbon emissions • Horrible idea. Do not choose this one.
71 • Not enough separa5on of pedestrians from cyclists. • Mixing auto & transit traffic is worst op5on for both - the two highest use modes.
Accidents are most likely in this scenario and most disrup5ve to overall traffic flow.
Shoulder is usually wasted space, & could s5ll be rendered useless in rail incidents • pedestrians and bikes in same mixed use lane is a safety concern • Why can't people bike or rollerblade through Discovery Park to get downtown? • Not enough transit lanes
• Class 2 bike lanes
• Too narrow and crowded. The wide shoulder is superfluous. • Car traffic can impede light rail.
• Not enough vehicle lanes for high traffic periods.
• People that don't know or obey rules and laws, whether on bike, foot or car. I see bicyclists all the 5me going against traffic and pedestrians walking with traffic, back to oncoming cars. These are simple age old rules it seems are simply no longer taught. So post signs reminding.
• More ways for speeding cars to hit bikes and walkers
• maybe a dedicated transit lane instead of shared lanes • Only 1 lane of traffic each way won't help conges5on. It might make it worse since everyone will try to use it. Then in a few years, you will want to expand it. • Having regular vehicle traffic share lanes with poten5al light rail tracks. Also, nonsensical drivers might abuse the emergency lane and shoulders to pass other drivers because they're impa5ent.
• None
• do t like Rt in the same lane as cars
• Mixed use lanes.
• Waste of taxpayers money. Focus and fix our current community issues. #1 Crime, Homeless, Traffic Conges5on and STOP BUILDING HOUSING IN SOUTH and NORTH NATOMAS the quality of life and the environment has deteriorated. Idiot idea! Considering the source of this proposal.
• I would be trapped on my street due to trains and too much traffic. It is already difficult to turn off of my street on to Truxel. Truxel is the only outlet from my street. A bike and pedestrian only bridge would be beler.
• Over accommoda5ons for less used forms of transporta5on • Lowest cost
• Does not appear safe for pedestrians & bicyclists that share he space • Transit should have its own lane, not a shared lane
• The narrow lanes and having to share with light rail trains. At 5mes trains have mul5ple stops which can increase traffic conges5on
• Everything other than cars
• "Doesn’t have dedicated right of way for light rail making it faster and more efficient and reliable.
72 •
• Shoulders are dead space 99% of the 5me. Slowing down cars and light rail 100% of the 5me by not separa5ng them just to prevent a delay or traffic 1%/2% of the 5me doesn’t make sense to me."
• Geing stuck behind tram in car. Could you make two lanes each direc5on with the available space? One mixed use lane and one cars-only each direc5on. • None
• Narrow, pedestrians not separate
• Transit needs it's own lane(s)
• Light rail..
• heavy traffic with transit Lane
• Mixing bikes and pedestrians.
• impact on the environment
• Rail should have it's own designated lane. Bike lanes should be pedestrian-free • I do not have concerns, it seems the more efficient and safe of the op5ons offered. • Light Rail.
• A car or train breaking down can impair access. This is not a good op5on. • "Mul5 use paths ocen cause conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists. •
• Light Rail should not have to wait for private car traffic. " • Only one traffic lane for each direc5on. Car accident means no traffic gets through.
Traffic jams during busy hours. Train track in the road means crappy ride quality for cars. • Pedestrians mixed with cyclists. It may be beler to have pedestrians uses the sidewalk side, but then again, cyclists can bike in the street, so no problem. • Mixed use will cause confusion.
• Traffic
• N/A
• Non-separa5on of pedestrians and motor vehicles
• Mixing ped and bike traffic can be problema5c. Need well-marked bike and ped areas.
Class II bikeway parallel to light rail tracks is extremely hazardous for cyclists. That needs to be dropped from the concept.?
• Please do not combine transit with car lanes
• Poten5al transit delays associated with shared lanes
• Not sure about transit auto sharing
• Looks like planners are an5cipa5ng that this will be a 4-Lane bridge in the future. City Council previously set a Neighborhood-Friendly Bridge Policy for other bridges over the Sacramento River. This project must follow that policy as well and only be two lanes since it is connec5ng directly into a residen5al neighborhood. The shoulders should be bicycle lanes, not open shoulders. Future Light Rail Transit (when funded around 2135) will be gridlocked. Should be transit-dedicated lanes like op5on B. 73 • Doesn't meet all needs and impedes incen5ve for transit. • None.
• cost too much
• transit and cars in shared lanes
• Don't like transit and automobiles sharing the same lane • Pedestrians not being separated from bikes and the car and transit lane seems not ideal. • Traffic delays for light rail
• Nothing
• That bikes will only have access to one side of the bridge. The best view from the bridge will be to the west, towards the confluence of the rivers--hopefully the bike/ped path will be on the west side.
• Cars/light rail sharing lanes, as well as pedestrians and bikes sharing space • None
• "Having a mul5-purpose path on one side and a sidewalk on the other is going to lead to significant conflict between bikers and pedestrians.
• Seems to be was5ng a ton of space. "
• Bikes and peds on the same path
• Transit should not share a lane with traffic. They need their own designated lanes to avoid delays like on 7th and 8th due to the DOCO traffic • Unused space reducing efficiency.
• none
• Delays
• "1. I don’t think the dedicated ‘emergency’ lane is necessary. The cost per sqc of a bridge is too high for this luxury. Is there any other bridge with a dedicated emergency lane.
• 2. The sidewalk on the right should be combined with the mul5 purpose path to provide a more useable path.
• 3. The shoulders are too wide. "
• None.
• Automobiles could poten5ally slow transit, Automobiles should be separated or beler yet, not included, Automobiles already have mul5ple op5ons unlike other forms of transporta5on
• Less safe with conflicts between light rail and cars
• Is this a real op5on being considered or is it just included to make the other op5ons seem more palatable? if I understand this op5on correctly it means that transit would be stuck in car traffic, it sounds like a terrible idea. A beler use of space would be to have separate transit lanes and let emergency vehicles use bike lanes. Could you have only one transit lane and schedule the trains so they are only going one direc5on at a 5me? If you Include an emergency lane and shoulders, but require cars and transit to share lanes, it seems like you’re priori5zing emergencies over the regular intended use of moving people across the bridge. Doesn’t seem logical.
74 • Do not like the light rail op5on. Will impact Truxel nega5vely • no concerns
• Couldn't you just take away automobile access all together on this route? There are plenty of other ways automobiles can get in and out of the city without allowing them on a bridge intended for public transit expansion.
• Transit and cars mixed together
• Combo light rail and auto lanes
• Shared travel lanes for bus/cars and bikes/peds.
• None
• Kitchen sink solu5on
• Shared bike/ped, need separate travel lanes
• Poten5al for vehicle traffic to delay transit. Having both sidewalk and Class I trail increases costs--while it is unlikely pedestrian demand jus5fies sidewalk. • "transit delays
• pedestrians and bikes are not separated"
• Vehicles and transit sharing same lane. If there is an accident, vehicles and transit come to a stop causing delays. Defeats purpose of efficient public transporta5on. • Traffic conges5on would slow both traffic and light rail • Keeping cars off the bridge
• Poten5al use of the emergency lane and the shoulders as regular travelways during congested periods.
• That the bike lanes are class 11 rather than class 1
• No
• Cars interfering with trains. Bad idea.
• No concerns
• Mixing light rail and other traffic.
• Shoulders are under u5lized space/ trash collector areas. Share auto/ transit. • Who will enforce the obvious traffic viola5ons that this project would beget. • Not a fan of the light rail having to deal with cars
• Removing prime riparian habitat is a detriment to wildlife who are already stressed with homeless individuals, their loose dogs etc.
• Transit will inevitably get held up in vehicle traffic, which will dissuade people from taking transit.
• "well let's just put walkers and bikers so close together, and let's spend money you don't have
• "
• NA
• "How is this the the narrowest possible footprint? You need shoulders AND a middle emergency lane??? You should go back to the drawing board and come up with something that uses less space. Look at 5likum crossing in Portland Oregon. 75 •
• You do NOT need to plan infrastructure for the worst-possible-scenario of a broken down vehicle on both sides of the bridge and a massive fire truck needing to cross this specific bridge without re-rou5ng to Northgate or Jibboom.
•
• I also don't think the light rail should share space with cars. The trains should cross this bridge at or near their top speed of 50mph, without being slowed down by humans that are notorious for being horrible drivers."
• Wasted space for shoulder and emergency lane. Mul5-purpose path combined cyclists and pedestrians
• Mixed use lanes.
• transit and car conges5on; people don't know how to use/share mul5-purpose lanes; emergency lane is wasted space 99% of the 5me; bikes will s5ll use the sidewalk • Car and train confusion. Right of way.
• Transit is mixed with cars. Pedestrians are mixed with bikes. Each mode of travel should be separated for safety.
• Mixed-use lanes may be awkward for motorists. Perhaps too narrow. • All of the "Cons".
• peds not being separated from bikes; bikes lanes need to have barriers between them and trains (no class II); car accidents are going to block trains • i don't love sharing driving lane with transit. it scares me when i'm driving. • Unsafe for bikes and peds. We don’t need another bridge for cars. • mixing bikes and peds and trains and cars are both bad ideas. • Shared use lanes would not do great things for transit reliability. • I think one lane is too limi5ng as if there is an accident, everything will be backed up and emergency services will be limited
• Cost. Light rail isn’t close at all on the north side. Future rail extension isn’t likely. Unless it’s already heading to the airport.
• Need more space for ac5ve transporta5on and don't allow cars • seems prely wide to me. that means $.
• That autos are allowed on bridge.
• All the cons
• I want a separate walk for pedestrians.
• mixed use lanes are confusing and can be in5mida5ng
• None
• None
• None.
• mixed use is not great for lanes
• none
76 • The transit delays with sharing a lane. I can see people passing through traffic through the emergency lanes.
• N\A
• Mixing trains w/ cars maybe confusing for vehicle travelers. I would imagine proper signage would be key.
• It is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and has no value to the businesses and residents living within an eighth of the rail tracks.
• This would poten5ally cause frequent traffic jams.
• Transit will hit drivers
• Will transit delay traffic? How?
• It's another accommoda5on for cars. If you want to encourage alternate modes of transport (It's been said this will help with climate change; I think this reason is a cheap manipula5on.) then build it only for pedestrians and bikes. This bridge, as is, will be very wide. Construc5on will impact the American River and parkway ecoystems. • Too small.
• Pedestrians are not fully separated from bikes
• None
• Doesn’t allow for expansion of north Natomas and increased usage needs in future. JD Smith connec5on.
• Safety of mixed mode I have not seen it work well in Other parts of town • Center median for emergency vehicles because this will be used by regular vehicles to speed past others and will result in more crashes. No separa5on between bikes and pedestrians. Impact to residences and businesses on Truxel (I don't know why you are only referencing Sequoia Pacific), mixed use lanes will create addi5onal problems and could lead to more crashes, especially if there is a bus or an unwanted and unneeded light rail. This is just a hot mess.
• Should not share with trains - dangerous! Not enough vehicle lanes -- should be 2 lanes each way.
• Sharing a lane with light rail makes me uncomfortable. I'm also worried about homeless people camping on the bike lane
• Separa5on of slow pedestrians from poten5ally faster jog/running and bike traffic on the trail side.
• More homeless to our neighborhoods and we do t want that! • Drivers sharing lanes with transit may be hard
• But why cars?
• 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.
• Vehicle and transit sharing lane
77 • i'm not thrilled about driving in the same lane as transit • All the cons plus the impact to the neighborhood. Transit delays defeat the purpose.
Truxel is not a main thoroughfare for heavy traffic, it is a neighborhood area. Garden Hwy is a nature & wildlife reserve. It is already being destroyed with the amount of camping & trash lec on the riverbanks.
• Pedestrians and bicycles sharing the mul5 purpose path can lead to injuries if people don't remain alert to others sharing their space. (But the sidewalk is a great op5on for pedestrians to use safely.)
• Conflict between pedestrians and cyclists
• Please see response in 6 other.
• I absolutely hate driving on light rail tracks. Do not like car/train shared lanes. • Driving on same line as transit is confusing
• Not enough room for all modes of transporta5on - high probability of accidents for cyclists and pedestrians
• why only 2 lanes of vehicles? The bridge will be congested the day it opens and y'all are going to look like schleps. Sacramento deserves beler. The emergency vehicle only lane is a waste of resources.
• Conges5on from shared vehicle/transit lane
• I don’t think it is efficient use of bridge space. The emergency lanes, while important, will probably be empty most of the 5me as with the shoulders. Also traffic on the bridge will cause delays with light rail.
• Mixed use with pedestrians
• Poten5al issues with light rail and automobiles sharing lanes. • I’m concerned that there is only lanes.
• Lightrail and cars share a lane, delaying public transit considerably. • Light rail needs dedicated space. Nobody will take it if it’s too slow because of shared lanes.
• Too much space for cars - those shoulders will let people drive super fast. • Cars slowing down the transit
• "A Broken down vehicle or public transporta5on can create chaos. •
• The mul5purpose path can lead to accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. " • Cars
• Transit and cars in the same lane
• Vehicle traffic
• it would be nicer if it transit had its own travel lanes to avoid being slowed by cars • Design includes fuel-burning vehicles
• Poten5al transit delays associated with shared lanes. • Looks congested
78 • Bike and pedestrian separa5on would be preferred, or at minimum, make sure width is wide enough to accommodate easy passing on a bike.
• Lanes that feel unsafe will not have widespread community adop5on, especially when the homeless take over the sidewalks forcing everyone out into the traffic. • None
• Mul5 use lanes (separate RT and autos); separate pedestrians and bikes. There should be 4 lanes for autos (2 going south, 2 north).
• The share bike/pedestrian path. I like the emergency lane but I think people will use it to pass transit or slow traffic and that will be dangerous. • creates induced demand for cars, bikes/walkers are mixed, lightrail impeded by car traffic, looks expensive, worst of all worlds
• Speeding. Safety
• Mul5-purpose bike/walking paths can cause conflicts between users. • Bikes and pedestrians mixed will be a lille dangerous and will slow down cyclists. • None
• This is a good op5on.
• Don't like the vehicle and transit lanes. I'm one of those peoples that is uncomfortable driving with the transit.
• Cars/rail conges5on
• Nothing
• Mul5 use path is not a good idea. Keeping bikes and pedestrians separate is of the utmost importance.
• I have NO concerns with op5on A. The cons men5oned have solu5ons with various mode of communica5on and such. Drivers will adjust and there might even be less people driving. The mul5purpose pedestrian/bike path is no different that the current ones around Discovery park and river. Transit delays will not be every day and therefore not much different to what we encounter now.
• I personally hate driving on light rail tracks.
• Too wide. Shoulders and emergency lanes are wasted space. Make it one rail lane and bike/walk only.
• Mixed use lanes will hold up transit during high traffic 5mes. Perhaps if it were transit only during rush hour. The pedestrian and bike mixed use can be dangerous. • Addi5onal vehicle conges5on. Why bother with cars? Just add transit lanes and cars can get on the freeway.
• The street will not be wide enough. This will be an area for more crime. • Seems like a waste of space for center lane and full shoulders on both sides • Keeping walkers, bike lanes, cars away from each other, emergency vehicle access • Cars share rail path
• Aggressive en5tled bicyclists
• How long it will take to build
79 • none-
• Light rail and vehicle traffic mixing is a horrible idea, least favorite op5on • Share same concern about delays in sharing lanes.
• None
• looks expensive to build and maintain with tax dollars • Timid drivers sharing a transit lane
• So many ways to get downtown, less save the money and create more shelters downtown for the homeless.
• Not enough lanes for automobiles. Mixed transit and automobile lane is too much. • El Costco.
• I do not like cars sharing a lane with public transits as it causes confusion and delays for both.
• impact on area once river crossed
• My main concern is that public transit and personal vehicles share the same roads making public transit more suscep5ble to being stuck in the same traffic as cars. • "Traffic behind transits
•
• Confusion of others. "
• Wai5ng for a train delay to be able to cross with a car. • "Cars / Transit share road.
• Shoulder is too wide
• Emergency vehicles should just use bike lane -- that's common in other countries. " • Mixture of cars and transit would feel uncomfortable
• 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. • transit delays
• Sharing of pedestrian and bike lane
• I don't like sharing lanes with light rail. Busses are fine. The concrete barriers as shown are not aesthe5cally pleasing.
• transit geing in traffic
• Because this op5on has mixed use lanes, the traffic lights on either end could quickly cause a backup of traffic across the bridge if they are not 5med well. • Transit delays from shared lanes is a concern but a minor one. • No cars! please!
• I don’t like the cars and trains using same lanes
• I dislike the mixed use vehicle and transit lane idea. I would prefer if the light rail had its own lanes. Perhaps use the shoulders space to segregate vehicle and transit lanes while maintaining the center emergency lane for emergency response vehicles and vehicle breakdown.
80 • Safety for bikes and Peds
• Poten5al transit delays associated with shared lanes as well as where would the transit stopping points be. Poten5al backed up traffic on Garden highway when transit crosses. • 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.
• i didn’t see a light rail line- oh wait is it on the traffic lane? yeah maybe a lille sketch • Mixed rail and vehicle lanes
• All aspects of having cars on the bridge are concerns. The bridge should just be for bikes, pedestrians, and light rail.
• Transit will get stuck in traffic. Peds on bike lane. • Might be bicycle/pedestrian collisions
• Mixed-use lanes will result in light rail/vehicle traffic and collisions. Nobody wants to ride a light rail that they see wai5ng in traffic, might as well just drive so that I can sit in my own car at that point.
• Wouu you kid be good to separate bikes and pedestrians as e bikes become more prevalent. You need to focus safety of these larger, heavier, faster bikes and manage that concern.
• Concern that pedestrians would just walk on the mixed lanes where cyclists might be going fast since it’s inconvenient to cross to the pedestrian side. • Pedestrians in groups will block access to bikes. I dislike transit and cars in the same lane because Sacramento drivers seem to struggle with that in midtown. Also dislike the car lanes and the nega5ve impact on traffic.
• seems bikes should be able to travel on either side of bridge • There are cars. Do not accommodate cars here. The fact the some drivers may be uncomfortable by the mixed use lane is the first con is absolute bullshit and you know it.
The only thing that makes drivers actually pay alen5on to their surroundings is when they are uncomfortable. That is how you reduce speed and keep people outside of cars safe. The fact that it is a con is horrific and explain how a lot of things around our community got built.
• Pedestrian safety
• Shared trolley and cars will make it slower
• It will s5ll have a huge nega5ve environmental impact since it is to be constructed over the parkway.
• I do not like this op5on. The mixing of high-capacity transit should not happen. It can obstruct hi-load transit vehicles and will restrict the poten5al for increasing transit service in the future.
• "Transit would get stuck in the same traffic as cars which would causes transit delays and make having transit on the bridge pointless.
•
• Note: I take issue with you deliberately making the “con” list shorter here. You seem to be guiding the public towards a preferred solu5on."
81 • Shared lanes, slow traffic
• I am concerned that including vehicles on the bridge will increase car traffic and nega5ve impacts that come with it: noise, air and water pollu5on, traffic, trash in the river. I am concerned that a vehicle accident/traffic to slow down or block the path of the train, making it less efficient.
• shoulder and emergency lane seem unnecessary: the road is too wide. • Vehicle access. Bad drivers will put pedestrians in danger and hold up public transit like in downtown.
• Cars mixed with other types of traffic. Too much conges5on around the bridge due to car traffic.
• all the cons
• None
• Encourages auto use! Air pollu5on! Size significantly impacts the parkway. Already crossing for autos on Hi 5.
• People are mixed into the bike lane
• Drivers using the shoulder to get around traffic. Unless there's something to make it not alrac5ve to use.
• Rails in the middle
• "The shoulder space is essen5ally being ceded to cars while bikes and peds are shoehorned in. • Combined vehicle/transit lane may subject future light rail trains to vehicle traffic." • Generally, I would love to see automobiles completely off the bridge. Dedicated bridge for public transporta5on, emergency vehicles, walking and biking. • Mixing transit with car traffic will most likely make the transit slower as it can get delayed by car traffic
• Mul5 purpose bike paths are dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists • Too Cheap and simple, doesn’t account for future growth • A lot of unused space dedicated to automobiles. This op5on will provide drivers with a visually wide area (emergency lane and breakdown lanes) that will encourage speeding.
Transit should have dedicated lanes. How ocen are vehicles breaking down that we need to dedicate space that will not be used the majority of the 5me to cars? • None
• mixed use seems dangerous. Don't like mixing pedestrians and bikes. • I think this is the worst of the 3 op5ons. Transit should be separate from vehicles. SACRT already struggles with on-5me performance in downtown with the mixed-use lanes. This will be the future crossing for the Green Line to the airport. Light rail transit speed should be preserved and limit interac5ons with cars.
• No separate bike lane
• Cars and public transit should be separate. Too much extra space to accommodate vehicles, which encourages speeding and dangerous driving. • Too much focus on cars. Transit must share space with cars. 82 • Not enough space for walkers. Great to have an emergency path! • "Mixed-use lanes may be uncomfortable for some drivers • Pedestrians are not fully separated from bikes
• Poten5al transit delays associated with shared lanes" • Bikes and pedestrians not being safe from car traffic. • Space in lanes for all users
• "Auto traffic/conges5on impac5ng transit reliability. This alone should disqualify this op5on.
•
• How would bikes be encouraged to stay off sidewalk? Once a bicyclist gets on the sidewalk side of the bridge, they can’t easily get over to the actual bike path. " • Pedestrians not separated from bicycles
• Cyclists will have to make room for pedestrians sharing their space, rather than assuming it is a bike lane only.
• no transit
• Shared transit/auto lanes will likely slow both, somewhat defea5ng purpose. Shared bike/pedestrian lane is uncomfortable for peds, and difficult for some bikers. This configura5on is usually aesthe5cally unappealing. The new bridge should be beau5ful as well as func5onal.
• Drivers in Sacramento are generally unfamiliar with mixed-use lanes (this has caused some issues when driving on streets like 12th street with the tramlines). However, the only way to make drivers in Sacramento familiar with and comfortable with mixed use lanes is to build them.
• Pedestrian safety and public transporta5on delays.
• None
• Safety of bikes and pedestrians sharing a space.
• wasted space for emergency access. bridges are high func5on. using all available space 24/7 is premium.
• I am concerned that there is not a clear separa5on for pedestrians and cyclists. The best bike-friendly infrastructure should have a clear separa5on from both pedestrians and automobiles. This is an opportunity to build for the future, we should be thinking about the type of community we want to live in, not just the type of community that we currently have.
• Mixed use lane could cause conges5on.
• I don't like that it doesn't have pedestrian walking availability on both sides • None
• The concerns you list.
• Sharing auto traffic with public transit, especially if it is light rail, can cause conges5on for autos.
• Feels like too big and urban of a city. Keep Sacramento's charm. • No room from w el Camino to San Juan for the addi5onal traffic 83 • Pedestrian safety
• Transit sharing same lane as cars. It would be nice to have transit/emergency vehicles lane only.
• Mixing vehicles and light rail. Mixing pedestrians and cyclists. Shun5ng cyclists to one side of bridge.
• seems like a recipe for making transit forever slower than a car. no way to cross from one side to the other side if you get on the bridge as a ped on the "wrong" side. • none
• Unneeded new bridge for vehicle/transit.
• Conges5on with only 2 lanes.
• Mul5-purpose path only on one sided
• Many drivers do not know how to share lanes with Transit Vehicles - this causes back up.
Commonly seen downtown sacramento
• Inclusion of car traffic. Wide shoulders. Mul5-purpose path isn't as appealing to pedestrians or bikers as separate paths.
• - Geing into and out of current parking lots along Sequoia Pacific Blvd - will there be stop signs for the traffic going on and off the bridge? • the cost when the rest of the city has such bad streets and they need fixed and all we get told is there is no money but somehow there is money for this bridge...and the city budget is $50 million in the hole?
• lightrail is subject to traffic
• Cyclists may s5ll use the shoulder.
• Bikes will use sidewalk. Cars don’t know how to interact with RT. • Slows down transit. Transit must have priority to increase adop5on. Why will anyone take light rail to the airport if the trains are blocked by cars? • Personal autos allowed
• I would prefer cars and transit to be separate, to prevent transit vehicles from geing stuck in traffic.
• None
• Light Rail not having it's own right of way.
• None
• mixing of bikes and peds. LRT would block vehicle lane some5mes. • We oppose autos on the bridge. The council can reconsider this op5on. Studies have shown that providing more op5ons for car travel increases miles driven. • "Addi5onal auto traffic along Truxel and the impact the noise will have on the natural environment in Discovery Park.
•
• Having bikes and pedestrians on the same pathway could pose problems. However, I don't imagine many people walking across it since walking traffic down Truxel going to downtown is generally limited to the homeless."
84 • Mixed use lanes poten5ally contribu5ng to transit delays. • Driver discomfort with Mixed-use transit lanes
• Only one way for bicyclists.
• Just wanted a beau5ful bride in our city
• Mixing bicycles and walking pedestrians means to very different speeds of movement.
Bicycle should have their own lane.
• Don’t like rails and drivers in same lanes
• Usability
• Transit delays because it’s not separated from traffic will turn away poten5al riders • Shared car/transit lane will slow down public transit, nega5ng its benefit. Driving in shared lane is also more dangerous.
• Transit will be slowed by private vehicles.
• Conges5on
• I have concerns that the bike lane doesn’t look separate from the pedestrian path. I’m worried that it may cause confusion, which could lead to accidents. • None
• Why do you need an emergency lane, shoulder should be enough space for emergency vehicles. Loose emergency lane and add lane for peds instead of sharing bike lane. • Would prefer even narrower op5on that would accommodate transit & bike/ped only, geing more cars off the roadways
• Bike lane and pedestrian traffic needs to be separated. • Too much going on, things should be separated
• This op5on is problema5c because it s5ll priori5zes cars on this road allowing for transit to be caught in regular traffic when it should be the quicker op5on. • none
• the mul5-purpose path could hamper bike commuters
• Vehicles and transit sharing lanes
• Public transit may cause a slow down/traffic
• Concerns re: bike/pedestrian interac5ons
• Light rail sharing auto lanes increases transit 5mes
• more commuters using secondary roads through neighborhoods to bypass I5 conges5on, shared transit lanes lead to conges5on
• "Cross sec5on width seems excessive
• Slowing down transit
• Sharing space with bike and peds"
• Biggest concern is automobile/light rail safety as mixed use lanes may become a hazard outside of downtown.
• Mixing transit and auto traffic is a shot in the foot for the green line. This will force transit to be at the whim of car conges5on when it should have its own dedicated right 85 of way. It will result in less incen5ve for people to use transit and thereby result in the same level if not increased vehicle miles travelled.
• Too auto oriented. I would prefer no private automobiles. • It’s only one lane
• Mixed use (transit) will just be a hope and never come to frui5on... Cars will be in the way of transit
• Expands use of personal vehicles with more air quality and climate impacts, increase in bike/ped conflicts,
• The vehicle and transit have to share lanes and that can cause many delays. • Mul5-purpose shared path with bicyclists and pedestrians is typically not safe, but faster cyclists would likely use the class II bike lanes in the shoulders, so I think it's okay in this case.
• "Pedestrians and bikes share their sec5on Some cyclists tend to be aggressive. • "
• Would prefer a bridge for alterna5ve modes and no cars. • Vehicular and pedestrian traffic are a plus. Light rail is not it brings crime and spreads homelessness.
• Shared car and transit lane
• Drivers unfamiliar with driving in same lane as light rail may panic • slowing down traffic ahead of bridge and exi5ng so that traffic incidents are minimized as much as possible.
• Mixed use lanes can be confusing to all who use them. • Cars and light rail sharing the lane like downtown
• It will be a big mess on Truxel bringing homeless and transient through the neighborhood and so much traffic since we have tons of apartments in the area. Too many people in a small area.
• None
• Mixed use lanes.
• Traffic cost money no benefit to it being so close to the freeway with only 2 /4 lanes bad idea.
• None
• Cars should not be in transit right of way. One of the best things about a train is that it avoids traffic. If you are going to put cars in it just do a bus at that point. • Emergency lane sounds wasteful. Why not just put it with the bike lane? • Doesn't seem op5mal to me.
• Too narrow. Conges5on. Too slow.
• Shared transit lanes could lead to system wide delays on RT similar to downtown traffic. • No separate pedestrian walkway.
• No separa5on of bikes and walkers
• Traffic back up behind the public transit shared lanes 86 • I do not like sharing lanes with rail lines.
• Vehicles pollu5on, light rail would bring crime, already have many means of traveling north/south by vehicles.
• It doesn't seem safe
• Shoulder plus emergency lane feels like wasted space. • The poten5al for transit delays.
• Shared vehicle/transit lane
• Mixed use may cause more traffic on bridge
• "We have so many other needed road improvements and repairs and other programs that would be a beler use of those funds.
• "
• Not enough lanes of traffic.
• Poten5al collisions between bikes and peds.
• Unused space
• Safety by mixing them
• Traffic may get stuck behind light rail.
• How will you get vehicles not to use emergency lane as passing lane? The transit lane on Wal Ave was only briefly used.
• Combining pedestrians and bicyclists at the far lec. This is how the American River trail is set up and it's fine, but there would have to be clear signs of proper e5quele between the two types of users.
• Light rail cars in same lane.cause conges5on traffic concerns specially light rail breaks down. Like them in their own lane.
• Safety of bike and food traffic
• City will be commiing to decades of increased vehicle traffic through Discovery Park.
Expensive.
• Transit in mixed flow is unacceptable as it will ensure interference between motor vehicle and transit. Lack of width measurements makes the cross-sec5on less useful and subject to misinterpreta5on.
• Mixed use lanes causing discomfort for drivers.
• Mixed use lanes will slow down transit and cause delays for everyone. • 2 traffic lines may not be sufficient
• "Mixed-use lanes may be uncomfortable for some drivers • Shoulders for vehicle breakdowns"
• Don't like it.
• Private vehicles should be banned. Only buses and emergency vehicles should be permiled. Class II bike lanes allow conflict with pedestrians. Class I bike lanes would be beler.
• Truxel would become a highway and it would be impossible to walk to the park or enjoy the community.
87 • Allows motor vehicle traffic. Motorists already have mul5ple large high volume river crossings. Along motorists diminished the experience for transit riders due to poten5al transit delays, motor vehicle traffic adds to pollu5on. Vehicle traffic exposes pedestrians and cyclists to pollu5on and noise.
• Seems like a lot of wasted space on the bridge with two shoulders and one emergency lane. I don’t like that bikes can only use one side of the bridge and pedestrians and bicyclists share space on the mul5-use path.
• None
• Does not separate transit and auto uses, thus nega5ng the benefit of transit (fast, efficient, separated from traffic)
• Need dedicated lanes for transit
• No significant concerns
• Mised used lanes
• No room for growth. Needs poten5al for more more vehicles in emergency situa5ons. • Easier movement for homeless from urban to the northern por5on of city. • Cars should not be on this bridge or part of this project. • Private vehicles should be excluded. They will slow down the trains and add VMT. The City should not add new car infrastructure.
• "Why have emergency lane? Seems redundant. Why the wide shoulders? Other op5ons do not have them. Why separate sidewalk? Mul5-Purpose Path seems sufficient." • It's all a bad idea
• Under no circumstances should there be a shared lane combining transit and vehicles.
Transit (light rail) should have its own lane to ensure efficient movement and decreased headways. Shared right of way throughout Sacramento slows light rail decreasing service stability. One lane of vehicle traffic should be the absolute maximum. • The shared space for pedestrians and bikes, and shared lanes for cars and transit. • Rail should NEVER be in a mixed lane with vehicle traffic. • biking and walking lanes are shared. Some5mes cyclists are speeding through and can be dangerous for pedestrians.
• Remove cars from transit lanes.
• I don’t like the mixed use travel lanes. I don’t like op5on A at all. Cost shouldn’t be a factor.
9a. What do you like about Op5on B?
• transit has its own separate lane
• It addresses the need for protected bike lanes that pedestrians don't share. It could be part of a well-conceived network of bicycle routes and bike-only roads to encourage SAFE bicycle commu5ng. People who have to drive can use it, but it's limited appropriately by only giving cars 2 lanes to use.
• Separate all
• Having cars and light rail separated is key. I like the separate bike path and sidewalk too 88 • Pedestrians and bicycles are near each other. 2 way traffic area for bicycles more flexible • Trains have a separate lane
• Seems it would be easier to drive on. Each mode has own lane • Transit will move quickly when it isn't sharing lanes. • like cars and light rail have own lane
• Trail connec5ons, bike and pedestrian near each other • Nothing
• The presence of bikes, pedestrians, and transit.
• Nothing
• Separated transit infrastructure is a must and I’m glad this includes it • If you can make the cycle track a protected bike lane so drivers don't kill us, then this might work, but it has to be something more than paint or floppy bollards. Pedestrians will love a nice, wide sidewalk separate from the stench and noise of vehicles. • Nothing
• No automo5ve transit. Keep it safe and tourist friendly by allowing for a scenic gateway between North Sac and Downtown/Midtown. Allowing only biking and transit will make the bridge a des5na5on that would surpass even Tower Bridge. • The separa5on between each mode of travel
• Bike Path and Sidewalk are on same sides, vehicle lanes are separate from transit lanes • I like op5on B except…
• separated modes of travel
• I do not like the plan in any way.
• Light rail is separated from the roads.
• Fully separated; bike lanes
• Cyclists and pedestrians are separated, transit can move unimpeded • Less accidents with bikers and walking pedestrians
• Bike lines and access to trail
• None
• Transit, Bike, and walk lanes
• More bike lanes, transit is uninhibited by cars.
• Class 2 bike lanes would be a legi5mate way to promote bike usage. Not fake protec5on that is s5ll really dangerous.
• I like that the vehicles are separated from everything else, however there should be bollards considered on the transit lane side to make it feel a bit ore enclosed as the motorists are crossing over the bridge. They should not feel comfortable enough to speed. In a situa5on like this, I think it would be okay if there was no physical barrier for the bicyclists/pedestrians, though I'd recommend considering swapping the travel lanes with the transit lanes.
• Nothing, there are cars
• Mul5modal
89 • Priori5za5on of public transit, separa5on of pedestrian walkway and bike lane. No wasted shoulder space will help control traffic.
• Cars are fully separate from transit.
• Separated transit and vehicles. Separate bikes/peds. Okay that emergency vehicles use transit lanes. Allows connec5on to trail. Less space for autos to keep down speeds. • Nothing
• All modes separated, trail connec5on, narrower lanes will help control vehicle speed • Nothing
• "- Dedicated train lanes
• - Dedicated bike path"
• trains not being over cars in their own lane
• Nothing
• This op5on seems the most reasonable and most similar to successful ped/bike/transit bridge projects elsewhere, such as the Tilikum Crossing in Portland, OR. I like that this op5on limits vehicle speeds, as this will make crossing the bridge a quieter and safer experience for pedestrians and cyclists.
• bike path
• Separa5ons among different types of traffic
• Nothing. Use Northgate Road instead of Truxel.
• nothing
• I like the public transit op5on
• Dedicated bike path
• Separated public transit lanes.
• Separated public transporta5on lane
• Everything except the vehicles- there is no need to include cars. • Separated public transporta5on lanes
• Transit lines have there own lane.
• Transit is given a dedicated ROW.
• Nothing, it's a nightmare. I would not use this on my bike, it's too dangerous. • Separate areas for each mode of travel. Design slows down cars • Travel modes are separated.
• Light rail vehicles are not impacted by traffic meaning that vehicle breakdowns/traffic won't halt them completely like in Op5on A. Pedestrians and bicyclists have their own space. Emergency vehicles can easily use transit right of way for fast access (not understanding why this is listed as a con). It's unclear from the render if the bike path is at grade with the road. As long as it's not at grade, barrier separa5on isn't as important (also, assuming that the vehicle speed limit is no more than 30 mph). If it is at grade then vehicle speeds would need to be 25 mph or less per NACTO recommenda5ons.
Vehicle breakdowns blocking travel lanes are not a concern because drivers already have mul5ple op5ons in addi5on to this bridge.
90 • All modes of travel are separated and connec5on to Jedediah Smith trail connec5on. • Dedicated lanes for everyone.
• Trail connec5on
• Not much
• Nothing.
• I like the separa5ons between each mode.
• Like that all peds/bikes are on same side, transit/cars separated • "Pedestrians separated from bikes and vehicles
• Cars and trains on separate lanes"
• Nothing
• Fewer modes of transporta5on sharing the same lane.
• It's Ok
• Transit is not sharing a lane.
• How many people talke light rail? For the future it makes sense and if there is car conges5on then so be it. We have to use alterna5ve modes of transporta5on. • everything is separate
• The City should stop considering the Truxel Bridge project and instead focus on Alterna5ve 8 (Northgate/Hwy 160 Bridge).
• None
• I'm okay with this design.
• Separa5on of all modes lead to increased safety.
• I love that the light trail transit is not slowed down by car traffic, and also like the poten5al of connec5ng the bike path to the exis5ng trails • I like the dedicated lanes for each transporta5on type, especially for both direc5ons of bicyclers.
• Pedestrian and bike paths completely separated and away from LR or vehicles. • Separated travel, trail connec5on
• Cleaner and more obvious where you're supposed to be--as a ped, cyclist, driver, or transit operator. More room for cyclists than in Op5on a • less confusion for different modes of transit
• I like that both vehicle lanes are adjacent to each other, I feel like that could calm traffic. • Separate modes of travel.
• The Jedediah Smith trail connector.
• It separates each mode of transporta5on.
• Oof the pro con list is working
• "Enough room for bikes and pets.
• Ques5on- why can’t trains be closest to cars. Feels safer than cars " • Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• No light rail
91 • Every travel mode gets its own dedicated space!
• Trail connec5on, modes of travel being separated is important • Op5on B is good
• How much beler it makes the other op5ons look in comparison. Foolish design. • Nothing but at least it doesn’t have shared vehicle/transit lanes • Pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit each have their own separate space on the motorway, and generally will not interfere with each other. • Two-way bike route.
• "reduced speeds
• separated travel modes"
• Dedicated bicycle lanes.
• All modes are separate
• Clear separa5on for all modes of transport and feels more clear on where everyone is suppose to be
• Nothing
• The poten5al for slower vehicular speeds
• Separate lanes for all types of traffic
• just make the bridge
• Separated walking and bicycle paths
• Nothing
• Support the J. Smith trail connec5on associated with this alterna5ve and like the unrestricted transit travel.
• No mixed use lanes.
• Spaces for cyclists and pedestrians
• par55on of 4 modes.
• separate bike lanes
• All modes are separated making travel safer for all. Keeping cars separate from public transit helps to make travel more efficient. Making public transit more efficient and consistent makes it a more viable alterna5ve to driving. Slowing car traffic is a proven method of increasing safety for all.
• Beler than A. Need protected lane. Don't you know that more lanes will not reduce traffic and conges5on challenges and emergency access? Look to PDX for their Tillicum Crossing or new Lloyd Bridge over I-84 for some inspira5on. Look to be the future of ci5es Sacramento.
• raised and separated sidewalks and bike lanes, transit • All modes of travel are separated.
• the pros are good!! s5ll needs work on bike and pedestrian, to much emphasis on vehicles, let's encorage bike/walk/mass transit
• Separated transit
• Transit lanes grouped. Car lanes grouped.
92 • Nothing
• Dedicated transit lanes, separated bike and pedestrian traffic • Best one. Just needs at least some bollards between bike path and cars. Otherwise the bike is going in direc5on of oncoming cars. Consolidate the sidewalk since won’t have a lot of people walking compared to biking/driving.
• Connec5on to the exis5ng bike trail is important.
• Modes are separated.
• Transit, pedestrians & bicyclists are separate & have their own path to reduce traffic conges5on.
• Separates bikes and pedestrians for the benefit of both • Dedicated space for peds and bikes. Curb separa5on from vehicles. LRT on far side away from bikes a peds for more pleasant experience.
• Op5on B has all modes of travel separated into their own sec5ons. • separated and dedicated bike lanes
• Accommodates transit and ac5ve transporta5on. Transit is separate from traffic • Separate transit from cars is a good idea
• that cars are seperate from the light rail
• Transit lane is included
• all the pros listed above
• I like the separate lanes for light rail.
• Transit has it's own dedicated lanes. Cyclists and Pedestrians are grouped in their own area.
• I don’t like Op5on B
• Dedicated bike line that's separate from pedestrians. Slower vehicles as well. • Dis5nct lanes for all modes of travel.
• Nothing
• is this one lower cost.
• I would not have to share a lane with transit
• Grouping of travel modes
• Separa5on
• Separa5on of transit traffic
• Separate lane for transit and cars
• I like the separated bike/ped path because it lowers fric5on there, but that's not a deal breaker.
• Bike and walking paths
• Separate flow of bike lanes.
• Vehicles and transit do not share a lane
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes to help control vehicle speeds. • Nothing, no bridge
• Dedicated transit and bike lanes
93 • Separated modes of transporta5on.
• The separa5on between cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists are very dangerous to pedestrians because they do not like to share.
• I like the designated bike lanes, this area is a popular loca5on for bike travel as it along some beau5ful trails. This op5on helps keep both pedestrians and cyclists safe. • Nothing
• The separa5on between auto and transit, however it might be annoying to have different signal 5ming and delays
• Separate traffic lane for RT
• Nothing
• I do not like this op5on
• Beler concept. This would be safer for Transit and car traffic. • Fully separated modes of travel
• easier to see. but wonder if homeless will live on the bridge. • Separate lanes for each mode of transporata5on.
• Separates various travel modes. Seems bike and pedestrian-friendly. • Separate bike and walking paths, no wasted space on shoulders/ e lanes • Love the seperated bike path
• Cars, trucks, motorcycles and public transit are separated from bicyclists and pedestrians which makes things much safer.
• Separate lane for each mode of transporta5on
• The slower vehicle speeds make it appear safer for travel • Same issues with poten5al increases in VMT if cars are allowed on bridge. Need local infill development to make alterna5ve modes viable to be used (if no shops, businesses, restaurants or housing close by then no one will walk and few will bike • All modes of traffic allowed
• The complete segrega5on of traffic modes.
• Nothing
• Bike and sidewalk on same side
• Transit has its own unimpeded lane of travel. I like that the bike path is separated from pedestrians.
• Dedicated bike lane
• Separate transit and vehicle lanes
• All of these op5ons are horrible. Widen I5 if you want to increase traffic flow capacity. • Best op5on in my opinion.
• Keeps all modes of transporta5on separate.
• Separates light rail
• Dedicated transit lanes for faster travel
• None
• All modes of transporta5on are separate
94 • All modes are separated, and emergency vehicles can s5ll use the transit lanes when needed (neither are an impediment to one another, as is the case with private autos). • No
• No wasted space in the shoulder. The light rail having its own dedicated lanes is beler. • Light rail not stuck behind traffic. Removal of shoulders which visually narrows the driving lanes to help slow traffic. Wide sidewalk improves walking experience. Not dedica5ng significant space to very occasional uses of emergency vehicles (which can easily use the freeway as they do now) and broken vehicles. • "As above, plus:
• - All modes of travel are separated
• - Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on"
• Nothing
• Specific lanes
• Best separa5on of modes for safety and efficiency.
• Separa5on of light rail and auto lanes.
• nothing
• The sidewalk and bike path separated
• Beler than op5on A
• It s5ll covers all modes.
• Smith trail connec5on
• All modes are separated.
• Every is separate, there is public transit
• Separate pedestrians and cyclists
• Separa5on for rail.
• This is the best op5on to keep transit moving and pedestrians safe from bicycles. • Dedicated lanes
• Separate bike lane. Narrow lanes to limit speed.
• Nothi g
• Separated mode of travel
• Nothing
• Seems like a good use of space
• none
• N/a
• My second favorite op5on; allows for each mode of transport to be given its own space.
The dedicated transit lane can be used for LRT extension if desired, though not preferred.
• Inclusion of transit and bike/pedestrian path.
• Separa5ng the cars from the transit is a great feature of this op5on • Wow! This op5ons looks good. Not sharing a lane with public transit seems efficient. • The separa5on will make each commuter feel much more comfortable. 95 • nice cyclist separa5on
• Safest op5on for pedestrians
• Transit not sharing space with automobiles.
• The inclusion of public transport would make commu5ng a lot easier across the river. • Separated modes of travel
• All modes of travel are separated
• Transit is not merged into other traffic and further away from walkers and bicyclists • Dedicated transit lane
• Separate bike and walking bath, narrow road lanes control speeds, transit lanes. • This is the best op5on. Ac5ve transit is sequestered. Breakdowns seem like a rare occurrence on such a short stretch.
• single lane for cars in both direc5ons
• Transit lane separate from vehicle lane is a plus. Less wear on 5res for passenger cars. • Seems more structured
• Seems to have more cons aka issues and chances for unfortunate situa5ons • It’s efficient for driving.
• Each mode of travel having their own sec5on.
• I like it much beler than op5on A. As a biker, mixed lane like op5on A is scary. and as biker or walker, we can easily change direc5on if we wanna go opposite way. • In Op5on B, cars are separate from transit and pedestrians are separate from bikes/mul5modal transporta5on.
• "All modes of travel are separated
• Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds" • Everyone is separated.
• Separa5on of each type of traveler.
• I like that affords more confidence that it is safe for people traveling by foot or bike. Also, appears to alleviate drivers being held up my train issues and vice versa. • Separate pedestrian and bike lane
• Light rail has dedicated lanes.
• accommodates mass transit.
• This is my favorite op5on. It gives the most for everyone and keeps a trail connec5on. • Nothing
• Its separate and avoids accidents
• Reduced but not delayed vehicle traffic, and trail connec5on. • connects to the Jed Smith trail
• I like separa5ng rail from vechiular traffic - makes it possible to increase rail traffic at a later point
• I don't like it.
• Each mode or travel is separated.
96 • "All modes of travel are separated
• Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on"
• fits all needs
• Beler alloca5on of traffic, easier to follow not confusing like the other op5ons. B is definitely a beler plan.
• Modes of travel separated, pedestrians far from rail
• dedicated bike path and dedicated walking path
• I like the fact that the cars and trains are in separate lanes. • Separate bikes and pedestrian paths.
• I do like that every lane has it's own path. Maybe make Sidewalk and bike paths smaller for broken down cars.
• Nothing
• Separa5on of modes of transporta5on but there must be a barrier • I do not like this op5on
• Seems saferJj
• All the listed pros
• Separate paths for vehicles and trains. Dedicated bike path. • separate clear paths
• Nothing
• I like that each mode of travel is separated and that transit has it's own lanes. emergency vehicles can drive in the transit lanes if needed due to vehicle lanes being blocked • Nothing
• Not sure.
• The bike lane is nice.
• cleaner and more organized
• Nothing
• Dedicated transit lane, grade separa5on between bikes/pedestrians and vehicle traffic. • I like B beler, it's easier if you are new to traveling this route to understand what is going on and where you are supposed to be in the lanes. • "I like the separated lanes. I think we would want to look at stats to see how frequently we are expec5ng emergency vehicles to need to occupy a lane. I feel like it would not happen frequently enough to warrant changing the whole design to add a middle lane. • I like that everything is separated, pedestrians and bikes have their own space off to the side, vehicles have their area, and transit is a whole separate sec5on. I think that would keep things flowing smoothly for all modes of transporta5on." • none
• Nothing.
• Light rail has its own lanes
• Nothing
• clear separa5on between pedestrian and bike paths.
97 • Bike and sidewalk separa5on
• Plenty of room for all users
• Separate area for trains
• Connec5ng light rail to Natomas (only applies if the city actually builds the line, which I doubt will happen)
• Not much
• Might slow vehicle traffic
• The separate lanes for each mode of transporta5on.
• Separate pedestrian and bike path; separate vehicle and transit lanes means if there is an impact to travel in one set of lanes, it would not necessarily impact the other mode of transporta5on
• Nothing
• Best op5on. Gives each mode its own dedicated space. Includes connec5ng to Jebediah smith trail
• Dedicated lanes for all modes of transporta5on.
• None
• This is the best op5on. It feels safer.
• N/a
• It is great.
• everything is separate
• Reduced vehicles speed
• yes
• proper delinea5on of modes
• separated travel modes.
• Separate lanes.
• Cara are not the priority. Cyclists separated from pedestrians • Lightrail is seperate
• Separate light rail tracks
• I like the separated lanes for each mode of transit
• "Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds" • Transit op5ons are separated
• Lightrail is gross and full of homeless poeple stop was5ng money on it just do op5on A so you take up less space with that crap
• separa5on of different modes
• Separate transit
• Pedestrians and bikers are separated.
• The trains being in their own lane.
• Complete separa5on of users and bike lane connec5on to main bike trail. 98 • Dedicated light rail. This will encourage light rail usage in place of vehicle. Emergency vehicles will be able to use bike lane as cyclists can temporarily dismount and move to sidewalk. Or they can use light rail lanes if there is no train at the 5me. •
• Seems safer
• It's ok.
• Everyone has his/her own space.
• Best op5on presented.
• separa5on of bike and ped
• Nothing
• Nothing
• Separates the cars from transit and pedestrians from cyclists. • It includes light rail
• Separa5on of all travel methods
• Nothing
• I like the focus on transit/walking - and believe bike paths for emergency vehicles is an easy solu5on to concerns about access
• Weird
• Pedestrian traffic and bike traffic are separate.
• All modes of travel are separated from each other.
• everything is separate
• Connects the bike trail and separate transit from cars. • Refer to Op5on A
• Beler than A. However I s5ll would not be able to get off my street Truxel. • Nothing
• Allows for Jedediah smith connec5on
• Appears more straighorward for pedestrians, cyclists, cars, and light rail to be where they are predictable so there is no ques5on if this is for vehicles or light rail coming. • Again, light rail running out here benefits commuters but also invites vagrants and transients. We see it all the way out to sunrise. This seems like this is all for the benefit midtown more than our districts.
• Separa5on
• I like the control of vehicle speed and Transit will have their own lanes. • Cars
• Dedicated ROW for light rail and bike path
• Nothing really
• Don’t knowl
• Wider space
• Bike access is wide.
• Nothing
99 • no
• a separate walking trail
• I like how everything is separated and has their own designated lane • The nest separa5on of direc5ons
• I don't like this op5on
• Really like how everything is separated.
• Trains aren’t in same road as cars
• All modes of travel are separated.
• All modes of travel are separated
• It seems easy to navigate
• Nothing
• Nothing
• Transit more separated from other modes.
• Beler op5on. Transit only lanes are best bet. Two-way bike lanes are a good op5on.
Glad you eliminated the shoulders.
• Modal separa5on is good. Trail acces is good.
• Mass transit!
• beler separa5on
• beler acomoda5on of all modes
• I like how pedestrian and bike path are seperate.
• All modes of travel being separate.
• Dedicated vehicle and light rail lanes
• Not much
• Dedicated transit and bike paths
• Transit lanes are usually going unused, so are emergency lanes. Seems like the best opportunity to share space.
• Bike and peds are separated from each other.
• Designated transit lanes
• Mul5-purpose use of bike path since bikes are most flexible to accommodate emergency vehicles or adapt to other uses quickly.
• "bick path and sidewalk on same side
• "
• All modes of travel are separated
• Best op5on, you’re almost there.
• I really like the sidewalk and bike path!
• dedicated lanes for bikes and pedestrians; connects to Jed Smith trail • Everything, it s5ll allows for safe travel
• All forms of transporta5on are separated from one another • This one seems the most logical. Breakdowns and emergency vehicles can use the bike lanes and bikes can go around them in the pedestrian lane. 100
• Safer with less conflicts between light rail and vehicles • Nothing
• Nothing
• Don't like it
• Separated transit!
• Separa5on of all modes. Light rail is on one side of the bridge, not in the middle. Seems less “ busy “.
• Everything is separated. All modes grouped together
• Priority modes per the general plan (ped, bike, transit) have their own lanes. • Makes more sense. Separate lanes for travelers and walkers • Separate bike/ped areas
• Gives transit parity in priority with vehicle traffic. • nothing
• Separate rail and car lanes are safer
• All modes of travel are separated.
• Pedestrians separate from bike path
• Nothing
• That all modes are separated
• Bikes
• I pick A.
• I like this much beler than op5on A. Transit, bicycles, and pedestrians have separate lanes.
• Can transit share one lane? Maybe the 2nd transit could be shared shoulder/ emergency lane and only used by transit if the other lane is down. • Nothing.
• I love that the light rail is separate
• Nothing
• I like the dedicated transit lanes.
• nothing
• NA
• I like that SacRT gets its own space.
• Separated, designated transporta5on types.
• beler separa5on of uses
• Separa5on of uses.
• nothing
• The separa5on of all travel modes.
• More usage
• I like everything about op5on B! It's safer than op5on A. • separa5ng cars and transit
• "
101
• Separate lanes"
• Nothing
• transit, bike, and peds all separated, and connec5on for bikes and peds to bike trail. • This is my preferred op5on as we have greater flexibility • Separa5on and transit throughput. I like the idea of the bike path being used as an emergency lane. Bikes will be able to go around on the sidewalk as needed. • Less.
• Best
• Narrower vehicle lanes
• bikes separate from pedestrians and cars. efficient use of space. • Don't see any real advantage.
• All the pros; Probably the biggest bang for the buck
• Separate walks for pedestrians
• Separates traffic which I prefer
• I like that each mode of travel has it's own lane
• None
• Like A beler but could live with the B op5on
• I like B- Safe for people and bikes off to the side- Trans on the other side • Ability to have Light Rail to the Airport - a #1 priority! • love this. keep people and bikes together on one side • Separate car & transit lanes
• Priori5es should be emphasized towards cyclists.
• It has a beler flow. Everything is separate. Protects the bikers and sidewalk users and gives transit its own lane.
• N/A
• Clear pathways.
• Most of it is 100 percent true.
• Allows trail access.
• Transit has its own lane
• This op5on seems terrible. No/small shoulder, and no EMS access lane? That's a traffic disaster recipe. I see no benefit to this op5on.
• All forms of transporta5on are accommodated.
• Beler than Op5on A
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds • Transit has dedicated lanes
• May be beler for more usage in future.
• Designated lanes
• Nothing really but it is good that everything would be separated. I don't know why the models keep showing a light rail thing. That is the worst idea for some sort of bridge like this.
102
• Safer to have individual car lanes. Must not share with train. • Nothing
• Not having to drive where light rail goes. Never heard of the trail, but walkability is nice • Simple separa5on of transporta5on modes.
• Nothing! Also a terrible idea
• How cars and transit are separated
• Separated bike path, but need to separate it from pedestrians too. • vehicles and transit having own lanes
• dedicated transit lanes
• I like that all lanes are separated
• Nothing
• Cyclists separated from pedestrians, and cars from light rail. • Please see response in 6 other.
• Lots of bike and pedestrian space. Cars and trains are separated • Separate public transit and driving lanes
• nothing
• Clear separa5on of travel modes
• I think it is the best compromise and most efficient use of space while keeping light rail traffic flowing. Emergency services can use the light rail lanes or bike lanes. Lowering the speed on the bridge will also reduce likelihood of accidents. • Light rail and autos have separate lanes.
• Transit has their own lanes
• Separated light rail, pedestrian, and bike space. Slowed cars. • The Jedediah Smith trail connec5on, reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds.
• Transit wouldnt be slowed by cars
• "Sidewalk specific for pedestrians.
• Transit lanes specific for transit. "
• Light rail has its own dedicated lanes which will help traffic flow beler • Separated bike lanes and walkways
• connec5on to the bike trail is a big plus, cars will not slow light rail • Nothing
• All modes are separated.
• Not a safe op5on
• Opera5on of all modes of travel.
• It’s a beler design to encourage non car traffic which is what we need more of in this city.
• Beler than Op5on A
• Like full separa5on of all travel modes.
• All transit modes separated and s5ll a small footprint. Bike trail connec5on. 103
• separate bike path, separate lightrail traffic
• Pedestrians and bicyclists are together, improved safety • bike and walking is separated
• Good provision for bicyclists and pedestrians .
• I don’t like this op5on.
• all of it.
• Separate rail and cars
• Nothing. There will be too much traffic
• Looks good, keeping modes separated is the best op5on. • Op5on B is an ok solu5on.
• Less wasted space. Trail connec5on.
• All transit is separated. Designated transit and bike lanes allow for unimpeded use. Put bollards on the bike lanes.
• Nothing. Not safe. Light rail is not a viable op5on.
• Connec5on to Jedidiah Smith trail, enough separa5on between vehicles and bikes/peds • Safer with designated rail route
• Nothing
• Light rail
• Beler for cars to be separate from public transport
• nothing preferred -
• Favorite op5on, good connec5on to jebidia Smith trail, bike lanes on the same side of bridge, light rail has own sec5on.
• Don’t like it.
• Everything
• nothing
• I like that each transporta5on mode is separated in that safety for all is implied. I like that the transit lanes are far away from the bikes and peds. I like that there is 2 way traffic planned for the bikes.
• Nothing stands out.
• Separate transit and automobile lanes.
• None
• Permite laconexion del sendero
• EVERYTHING! I love that vehicle lane is separate from transit lane. • separate vehicle & transit lanes
• More organized and easy to understand
• Separa5on of bike path
• I love that transit is not inhibited by traffic.
• Separa5on of all modes is god
• n/a
• trail connec5on is nice
104
• Every mode of transport has its dedicated lane
• Slight separa5on of road bed and bike/pedestrian lanes. Light rail has its own lanes. • separate transit lane, raised cycle track
• Vehicles and light rail having separate lanes means less chance of one long line wai5ng for a stop light at either end of the bridge.
• That all modes of travel are separate.
• The cyclepath
• Separated cars and trains
• I like the separa5on of the vehicle and transit lanes but it feels like the separa5on causes more issues than it solves in this layout.
• I don't like it. The bridge should be car-free.
• Safer for bikes and peds
• Not as u5litarian as op5on A.
• everything is separate
• "Separate rail vehicle lanes
• Modes in like loca5on "
• Separate pedestrian and bike path; light rail is unobstructed by cars. • Dedicated public transit so buses/trains dont get stuck in traffic • No sharing lane with train
• Everything, best op5on. As a daily bicycle commuter I don’t mind sharing my lane with an occasional emergency vehicle or pedestrians. Also, Pedestrians will be rare and infrequent due to distance/length of bridge. Single occupancy vehicles impeded by vehicle breakdowns will be encouraged to consider the light rail as they see it whizzing by unimpeded.
• Safest as every mode gets their own lane, but why not have an op5on where you separate peds from bikes, but have the transit and autos s5ll share lanes? • Connec5on to the trail.
• I like the separate bike lanes.
• Nothing
• Pedestrian safety
• Dedicated transit lanes; connec5on to Jed Smith trail; separated bike and ped traffic • This is a beler op5on that keeps the modes separate. I am not concerned with emergency vehicles using transit lanes. This is a common prac5ce in interna5onal ci5es that actually improves emergency response 5mes.
• Nothing
• I like that this includes pedestrian and bike travel. I am neutral about public transporta5on traffic, with a strong preference for train traffic over bus traffic. • peds are separated from cyclists. No emergency lane or shoulder. • All modes of travel are separated. Transit doesn't have to share road with vehicle lane. • Separated paths.
105
• all the pros
• Do not like this op5on.
• Don't like it.
• People and bikes are sepperated
• Not much since bicycles are not protected and are open to harm. • My favorite just makes sense
• The list of pros nails it, and the curb separa5on between the bike and vehicle lanes seems like a good compromise.
• Love love the bike lanes, would love it more if they were protected from vehicles oh wait as I said for op5on A. Get rid of the cars.
• I like that there is a lot of space dedicated to pedestrians and cyclists • access to the Jedediah Smith trail
• Personal vehicles are not the priority in this design. The "cons" of increasing wait 5mes for cars should not be cons. Probably easier for emergency vehicles than on op5on C since vehicles can pull over on both sides.
• Bikes separated from pedestrians
• Nothing
• separates cars from transit. separates pedestrians from bikes • I really like this op5on. All vulnerable modes are separated. I don’t think it’s a con that emergency vehicles would have to use the mul5-use path, I think it’s actually a pro.
Other ci5es have bike/ped trails allow access for emergency vehicles, and it’s a bypass to vehicle traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists are more respecul of emergency vehicle right of way than drivers.
• Separate bike lane with no pedestrians
• All modes are separate.
• Separa5ng transit from cars
• Jedediah Smith connec5on. Lower vehicle speeds.
• "All modes of travel are separated
• Allows for Jedediah Smith trail connec5on
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds" • Clear separa5on of where each mode of transport is supposed to be. • The defined lanes for each use.
• Ver5cal and horizontal separa5on between autos and bikes/peds. • Separa5on of bicycle and pedestrian traffic seems a bit safer than in Op5on A. • transit
• Separate modes of travel for all. Bike trail connec5on. • It is not op5onal to have a physical barrier between car traffic and pedestrian/cycling traffic. It is a 100% requirement unless you want guaranteed death from your design. • Reduced vehicle speeds.
• Love the connec5on to the trail.
106
• trail smith connec5on
• "Like the physical separa5on between cars, bikes, trains, and pedestrians. •
• Class II bike laneClass II bike lane"
• separate vehicle and train routes. one wont impact the other unless emergency. • I like the pedestrians and bikers each have their own dedicated space. I like that there is space for transit to use the bridge.
• Modes of travel are separated.
• I liked that it has all modes of transporta5on
• Nothing
• The pros you list.
• Much safer for walkers etc.
• Does not mix auto traffic with transit traffic.
• Transit lanes
• Gateway for homeless
• Each transporta5on mode has own sec5on
• I think this helps create a safe feeling when automobiles are separated and keeps automobiles from speeding
• Separa5ng pedestrians and cyclists. Separa5ng traffic and light rail. • no transit delays
• least favorite op5on
• n/a
• The separate biking and walking path
• "Separate car vs Transit lanes.
• All sidewalk and bike paths on the same side"
• Fully separated bike lane with easy connec5on to trail. Narrow lanes and minimal shoulders to slow auto traffic.
• lightrail is not subject to traffic
• "Again, who thinks up this stuff? Why don't you just put sidewalks in the middle of traffic...honestly, these ideas make no sense and where is the money coming from? • "
• I do not like anything about Op5on B.
• Connec5vity to trail.
• Transit is separate from cars, so transit vehicles won’t get stuck in car traffic. Connec5on to Jedediah Smith Trail.
• None
• Light Rail has own lanes
• Separate transit and auto lanes.
• separate bike path from sidewalk.
107
• I like the connec5ons to other bike trails. I like that every mode of transporta5on has it's own lane.
• Separate travel modes will reduce conflicts and be the most useful op5on for all road users.
• Nothing.
• Dedicated bike lanes separated from pedestrian traffic. But those bike lanes should be wider, since pedestrians don't need the same width of space. • I like that the light rail is not mixed with car traffic • all separated travel modes
• Separate lanes for various modes of travel.
• Room for all
• No
• Bicycles have their own lanes
• Separate rail and drivers
• Car traffic is good
• Separate transit lane means it makes it more efficient and quicker to use. Which would encourage more people to use it.
• Separate transit lane.
• Dedicated transit lanes mean faster transit service, in turn meaning higher ridership than with mixed lanes.
• Separated travel
• I like how there are mul5ple transporta5on op5ons on one bridge with clear designa5ons for which sec5on serves each mode of transporta5on. • Ensures transit will be on 5me, increasing ridership. Slows traffic on bridge. • None.
• Not much
• Separated bike and pedestrian paths.
• not much
• I don't
• I like that bikes have their own dedicated lanes next to each other. It also gives equal priority to all op5ons of transit. It also doesn’t separate pedestrians with a dangerous road… but s5ll keeps them right next to one.
• Cars don't have to share a lane with light rail trains • all modes are separate
• Different lanes for vehicles and transit
• Everything is separate
• Separated modes of travel
• Separated transit lanes and wide bike ped paths
• Separated modes
• "Dedicated transit lanes for fast transit
108
• Puing bikes and peds adjacent to eachother"
• I like that cars in light rail are separated.
• I like that there is separa5on for each transporta5on mode. Transit having its own right of way is a necessity, so that’s good to see here.
• I like this more because it increases density of walk and bike. • Invests in future transit, bike trail access
• beler bike/ped separa5on
• I like op5on B the most. It separates all the traffic and the emergency vehicles can s5ll have access .
• Slow cyclists can ride two abreast and are separated from pedestrians. • "The space that everyone gets and that the smaller the car vehicle lanes are it will push them to drive slower.
• "
• Separa5on of modes
• Every mode is separated so less likely to have accidents. • Separate pedestrian and bike lanes
• bike path separate from pedestrians, narrow lanes forcing traffic to slow down • Separated modes of travel
• i would say op5on B is beler than op5on c as at least the cars and the light rail are beler separated
• Don’t like op5on B
• Great op5on, safe for pedestrians
• Separate modes of travel.
• Nothing s5ll a bad idea see op5on a for list
• I don’t
• Cars are not in the transit lane
• Beler
• Beler than A
• Too narrow, slow, & conges5on.
• Good compromise for emergency and dedicated right of way. Addi5onal wait 5me for vehicles may reduce traffic bypass through South Natomas. • Modes of travel are separated.
• Separa5on of bikes and walkers
• Separate transit lanes
• I like the sidewalk next to the path and separate transit lanes. • n/a
• It seems safe
• Might be the best op5on of the 3 per cost.
• That automobiles are separated from transit lanes, and that the bike/ped lanes are only on one side of the bridge.
109
• No shared vehicle/transit lane
• Separate vehicle and transit lanes
• N/A
• 4 lanes of traffic
• Keeping peds and bikes separate from each other. Dedicated light rail for genuine traffic avoidance.
• Dedicated bike lane
• safer op5on
• Dedicated lanes for each mode.
• Bikes separate from pedestrians.
• Each type of user has their own dedicated lanes.
• Separate lanes for light rail
• Not as deairable
• "Overkill. Too large a project footprint. Redundant to 5/99 and to the bike/ped crossings already in place.
• See my answers to previous ques5ons."
• Nothing.
• All modes of travel are separated.
• All modes of travel are separated
• Side walks on opposite sides
• All modes of travel are separated
• I prefer B because pedestrians and people on a bike are not near each other. • Nothing, except that it includes transit, that’s one good thing. • Class I bike lanes
• Nothing
• Pedestrians and cyclists are each given their own space from each to promote travel at their chosen speeds. Transit is given its own space.
• Bikes and ped are separated.
• Separated lanes for transit
• Reduced speed possibility
• I like the connec5on to Jedediah Smith trail, reduced vehicle speeds, separated pedestrian and bike path routes.
• Controlled vehicle speeds
• All modes present
• All modes are separated
• Dedicated transit lane.
• Trains have separate lanes from cars.
• This op5on seems to be less complex and least expensive op5on. • Destruc5on of environment
110
• Transit is fully separated which will increase efficiency for green line expansion and reduce transit bolleneck.
• Separa5ng the different modes of transport, link to exis5ng bike trail • I like that transit and auto traffic are separate.
• separated bike and pedestrian lanes
• Nothing. Its infascture bloat.
9b. What do you dislike about Op5on C?
• no physical barrier between peds/bikes and cars. Also, I would like this to be pedestrian/biking/mass transit bridge only. No personal vehicles • Wider Footprint on American River Parkway
• None
• Lack of bike/ped access on both sides of the bridge, currently only on side would have access
• Remove private cars. They are not appropriate on this ac5ve and public transporta5on bridge.
• No barrier is a problem, add a barrier between bikes and cars • Bike and people walking can be killed easier without more of a barrier like op5on a • No shoulder lane
• Lack of physical barriers is scary unless the vehicle speeds are 25 and under. People who aren't confident bicyclists or pedestrians may feel unsafe and end up driving on the bridge instead.
• no physical barriers separa5ng walkers and bike
• Do not want cars
• Why are there cars? Why do cars need another crossing? They have four already. • We do not need more car-centric infrastructure in Sacramento. • No protected bike lanes. Too large and auto centric
• Cars. Op5on B has even less protec5on between cars and bikes than Op5on A. Get rid of the cars in the design and I’d like it. It’d be narrower and cheaper, too. • No physical separa5on of bikes from traffic
• If past Sac projects are any indica5on, cars will be priori5zed, crea5ng conflicts with bikers and pedestrians leading up to bridge.
• There's no barrier between motorists and bicyclists/pedestrians. RT is a great idea, but improvements are slow to come.
• Should be specifically for ac5ve transit. Not cars. Emergency vehicles have to use bike path. This is no good.
• No automo5ve transit. Keep it safe and tourist friendly by allowing for a scenic gateway between North Sac and Downtown/Midtown. Allowing only biking and transit will make the bridge a des5na5on that would surpass even Tower Bridge. • "There are no barriers separa5ng pedestrians, and bikes from vehicles. 111
• I don’t think narrower lanes will help reduce vehicle speeds." • no physical barrier; no breakdown lane/shoulder, no emergency lane • The community in South Natomas does not want Truxel Road lightrail nightmares. A lightrail bridge can be built to run along the freeway on one side of the freeway near the train sta5on, and build a pedestrian/walker bridge on the other side of the freeway which would provide easier green commute.
• No physical barrier between mul5purpose path and roads. • To much traffic
• No barrier between cars and cyclists/peds, no emergency lane -- this is the worst op5on • Not sure why car travel lanes are included in this?
• Mixing cycling with motorists
• Expensive, larger environmental impact, lack of bike protec5on • Emergency vehicle access
• Cars, do not need Vehicle lane they have 16th street and I5. We need public transporta5on and walk/bike lanes
• Cars should not be included in this bridge.
• There are cars
• Pedestrians and bikes are not fully separated from vehicle traffic. • More expensive.
• No barrier between vehicle and bikes. Can't that be added? Don't care about addi5onal signal 5me-vehicles can wait.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. Inclusion of vehicles which makes bridge wider and more expensive
• Vehicle traffic. The bridge should be limited to the light rail cars, pedestrians and cyclist. • Just remove the car lanes. More cars into Midtown=more car conges5on, more parking issues, etc. Make it walkable and watch it turn into a fashionable neighborhood • Not needed
• emergency vehicles
• Cost
• "I don't like that this op5on has no physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles.
•
• I also feel like this op5on could be modified so that transit lanes are to the inside (or the outside) of the general vehicle lanes. This way, emergency vehicles could use the transit lanes for brief emergency periods and would have access to the general vehicle lanes." • vehicle traffic
• Lack of concern for other modes of traffic
• I've expressed my extreme concerns with light rail coming through S. Natomas via Truxel.
Don't like any plan or anyway you paint it.
112
• sidewalk on one side only
• S5ll too wide, no shoulder, which is fine if you eliminate cars. • No physical separa5on for cyclists or public transporta5on. Cars will drive in those lanes. • No physical separa5on for cyclists or public transit. Cars should not be allowed on the new bridge
• Including vehicles will not encourage more sustainable modes of transporta5on as habitvehicles should not be included. • No physical separa5on for cyclists from cars. Cars already drive in the bike lane on Garden highway, what would stop them here. Also no physical separa5on for public transporta5on. Cars will drive in that lane too. Cars should not be allowed in the bridge • Sidewalk and bike lanes next to each other.
• No shoulder for emergencies
• Too much space is dedicated to private vehicles. The bike lanes are unprotected. • It's horriffic that you would consider a design in which no physical barrier separates pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. This will kill people. • No physical barriers
• Longer wait 5mes at Richards
• None, this seems like a decent op5on.
• Addi5onal wait 5me at the Richards Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden Highway intersec5ons due to separate light rail signal 5ming.
• No barriers between pedestrians and bikes vs vehicles. • Just eliminate the car lanes... like the Tillikum Crossing in Portland. You'll end up with a cheaper bridge and more mobility for bikes/peds/transit users. Is there really a need for more vehicle lanes?
• "Emergency vehicles will have to use bike path or transit lanes for access • Vehicle breakdowns will impede traffic due to the reduced shoulder space • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • Lack of physical barriers
• Not enough vehicle lanes.
• I am worried that there is no physical barrier between bikes and cars • no physical barrier separa5ng peds/bikes, emergency vehicles poten5ally using bike path • "No physical barrier separa5ng bikes and pedestrians from vehicles. • "
• No barriers between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Addi5onal, wait 5me for signals. • No shoulder or emergency lane.
• Like to see Op5on C
• leave enough space for emergency vehicles or they can use bike trail. If you're going to build it spend the money now and build 4 lanes for traffic. • Lack of physical separa5on between pedestrians/bikes and vehicles 113
• The Truxel Bridge was deemed the most environmentally damaging of the alterna5ves considered in the City’s American River Crossing Alterna5ves Study. • "Seems like it would impede users
• "
• Transi5on of rail lines from the bridge to street level. Will lines con5nue straight or will they need to cross over into vehicles lanes for further travel north and south. Is single traffic lane in either direc5on enough to accommodate volume of traffic. • Lack of a barrier between cars and pedestrians/bikes. • Slight concern with suggested addi5onal wait 5mes at intersec5ons, but believe that will be incorporated thoughully if this design is used.
• Emergency vehicles do need to have a place to pull over Next to the Class one facility. • No physical barriers, long wait 5mes, vehicle breakdowns • None!
• this should include a physical barrier between bikes/pedestrians and cars. no vehicles should be allowed to enter bike/ped area.
• I s5ll prefer the bridge have no cars.
• Emergency vehicles using the bike path. Narrow lanes causing accidents. Wait 5mes due to separate train track.
• Wide lanes to accommodate vehicles and LT
• Addi5onal wait 5me at the intersec5on.
• The public transport may fall over.
• All the cons are big ones!!
• "You can address all these problems by not allowing cars:
• Vehicle breakdowns will impede traffic due to the reduced shoulder space • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Addi5onal wait 5me at the Richards Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden Highway intersec5ons due to separate light rail signal 5ming.
• "
• Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• No light rail
• physical barrier protec5ng walkers and cyclists is cri5cal for actual and perceived safety. • No physical barrier for cyclists next to the vehicle lane. • Pedestrians are yet again placed below car usage, I do not think bicycle usage as a major form of transporta5on will take off in this city unless there is actual separa5on due to cars driving too fast. Montreal had a similar issue with low ridership un5l they built physical barriers which spurred a massive growth in usage. • Least favorite.
• None
• We need a protected bike lane. I'm not gonna die because of you. • It’s not needed and it’s a bad idea
114
• There are not protected barriers separately bicyclists from motorists, crea5ng a safety issue for bicyclists. This is especially if the speed limit is not regulated or motorists drive above a certain speed.
• No barrier and using bike lane for ER access.
• Having all the sidewalk and bike path together on one side. More likely to be misused, obstructed, used for emergencies. Having a smaller one on each side is more convenient.
• No physical barriers between cars and bikes, no shoulders. • Not enough space for anyone
• No emergency areas and no separa5on
• It's sloppy there's no emergency vehicle access and a priori5zes trains over everyone else
• No protec5on for pedestrians and bikes from traffic, wider footprint. • Emergency vehicles using bike lane
• just make the bridge
• Everything, slower access, more wai5ng, less access for first responders, larger, more expensive
• Too wide … need to combine car and bus lanes.
• Environmental impacts and cost
• Don't understand why there isn't a physical separa5on between the bike path and vehicle traffic. Seems like a simple fix to improve this alterna5ve. • Why do we need 2 train tracks if light rail usage has declined. • No car free space.
• car-centric. Small bike lane (I ride both bikes and a trike - the laler would be awkward, as would acommoda5ng a racing type of wheelchair. Also, how would pedestrians & cyclists cross over the other sides before/acer bridge? Tilicum bridge, a gem, has ped & cycling lanes on both sides. Check it out - well-planned. • no barrier between bike lanes and traffic
• Cyclists and pedestrians are stuck next to cars instead of being on the opposite side of the train. The emissions from cars will create unsafe breathing condi5ons. Buses and emergency vehicles will s5ll get stuck in car traffic.
• Emergency vehicles will have to use bike path or transit lanes for access • People will get confused
• Above
• 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.
• How wide is sidewalk and cycle track?
• Bike Path is not protected by a concrete wall.
• "No shoulder
115
• Addi5onal wait 5me at signal"
• the cons
• I prefer an op5on (not listed here) that does NOT include automobile traffic. The new bridge should only be for walking, bicycling and rapid transit (with emergency vehicle use).
• "Need to elevate the bike lanes to create a physical barrier with the car traffic lanes.
Need to further elevate the pedestrian walkways to separate them from the bike lanes.
If there is a traffic, vehicular, or emergency issue, the traffic lane(s) could be temporarily closed to m emergency vehicles. In an extreme emergency, the transit lane(s) could be shut down for the durac5on of the emergency.
• Stop thinking that the bike or pedestrian lanes should be the emergency curbside lane to be shut down and used for emergency situa5ons. Change your thinking. Shut down a car lane temporarily and direct any traffic (use the City Police, Sheriff, or CHP) to direct the car traffic in a controlled fashion into the center cart lane next to the transit lane. • Stop making car travel convenience the end all and be all of the bridge design and op5ons to other modes of transit like light rail, bikes, and pedestrians. Start looking at the next 25 years, 50 years, or hundred years rather than just next month or next year. • Get the car only City Council or County Supervisor crowd out of their car-only travels and onto a light rail car, bike, or walking shoes for a couple of months and see how quickly they change their thinking about beler op5ons other than the convenience of car travel. • F*cking 20th century babies! ;)"
• "Flawed access for emergency vehicles
• Makes no sense"
• Poten5al for pedestrians to enter the bike lane, lack of physical barrier for cyclists • It includes automobile traffic, which the bridge should not do. Please consider a plan which priori5zes ac5ve transporta5on and transit to the exclusion of car traffic. In this case, the interference with both emergency vehicles and bikes and pedestrians is unacceptable.
• No pedestrian sidewalk on one side of bridge.
• I don't see a safe barrier between vehicles & bicyclists. • "Vehicles entering bike lane without a physical barrier •
• Lack of barrier makes bike and pedestrian use less popular" • Offset rail may raise structural challenges. Remove 2' Shld and place a conc barrier. Make travel lanes 12' for safety.
• Too much space is dedicated to cars and not enough separa5on is available between modes of travel. Cars don't have any actual infrastructure blocking them from hiing cyclists or light rail trains, just paint.
• No protected bike lanes
• Lack of physical separa5on between bike path and vehicle lanes. • no barrier between bikes and cars
116
• poten5al impediment/danger to cyclists due to emergency vehicle use of bike lanes, and lack of physical barrier
• None
• no concerns with the cons listed above
• It doesn't appear as safe.
• The bike lane should have greater protec5on with a dedicated physical barrier. • All of the above
• No physical separa5on between vehicles and bikes.
• Limited access for emergency vehicles and vehicle breakdowns geing in the way. • Too much space leads to higher speeds and death.
• we need a shoulder for broken down vehicles. also need physical barrier between bikes and vehicles
• Emergency vehicle access and addi5onal traffic especially when there are breakdowns • Would like RT middle of bridge to maintain iews
• Conges5on for light rail
• None
• No shoulder or emergency lane, so when there are accidents, traffic is backed up and will cause delays going around.
• In the words of Tracy Chapman, "You've got a fast car..." and you will drive it fast on this road.The lack of physical barrier between those fast cars and bike lanes...could lead to problems.
• No train
• Lack of emergency lane. Kaisers new hospital will increase emergency trips. • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • Same as above on op5on a
• Too expensive. We spend a lot of money on bike infrastructure and there are very few bicycle riders that actually use it. My experience is most of them ride on the sidewalk even when there is a bike lane. Have had dozens if near miss accidents as they shoot out into the streets. Bam bicycles!
• The size
• Bike lanes are too close together
• This op5on seems very disjointed, each mode of transporta5on is relegated to a specific side of the bridge.
• No separa5on between pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars • No shoulder
• The separa5on between auto and transit, however it might be annoying to have different signal 5ming and delays
• Why can't this one have a barrier?
• Not having a physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • No physical barrier between vehicles and pedestrians/bicycles 117
• None.
• Single lane for car traffic in each direc5on, and the transit lanes won’t be in constant use • No room for emergency vehicles /and breakdowns. Make pedestrian lanes and bike lanes less wide to accomodate emergency vehicles. Add barrier for pedestrians. • Light 5ming is a minor concern as many spots throughout sac have 5ming issues with stop lights
• Lack of shoulders and space to accommodate emergencies. • Reduced shoulder space
• "FACT: Very Few people walk and/or bike in Sacramento. • Those who do walk, frequently, cross in middle of the roads. • Make minimum area for bikes and walkers.
• No real physical boundary between bikers and cars, no shoulder for breakdown parking • Seems cumbersome.
• Having cars be priori5zed with central lanes might make it so other modes of travel have to wait for cars to turn or exit. There is less walking space and not separated lanes for both direc5ons of travel.
• Need to be integrated into Zero Carbon growth plans in local CAPS and General Plans.
Car traffic will likely increase Vehicle Miles Traveled and thus Green House Gases will increase! No cars - bridge may be less costly if not cars - only all alterna5ve modes allowed! Use saving for in-fill development!
• Likely conges5on at several choke spots
• The lack of physical barriers between bike/pedestrians and cars. • No rail service. I would prefer all lanes to be for automobiles • Everything men5oned in the cons, no cars please
• No physical barrier for pedestrians/bikers from vehicles. • 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. • Seems like too many headaches and traffic impacts
• Lack of shoulder space for emergency access. No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles.
• No shoulders, no barriers, pedestrian travel on only one side, in my opinion, I don't think there will be enough bike travel to jus5fy their own lanes like that. • No barriers to protect bicyclists and pedestrians. No shoulder room for breakfowns • Crime, vehicle use, light rail use that we do not need nor want. • Traffic conges5on on truxel
• Reduced shoulder space might be an issue, but at least other modes can s5ll get by if there's an auto crash. But why are there no barriers between the autos and ac5ve users???
• Cars
118
• The mul5-purpose path 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 can be used elsewhere in Sacramento • "Are two transit lanes necessary for the whole length? How ocen will light rail trains be passing each other on the bridge?
• The bike path not being physically separated would be more dangerous to bikers on what will likely be a long, straight road which allows higher vehicle speeds." • - Vehicles allowed at all affec5ng pedestrian/cycling use and safety • It's more expensive, there's no barrier between traffic and the bike path. It priori5zes cars.
• Too much space. Too large
• No emergency lane
• no separate emergency lane, vehicle breakdowns will impede traffic due to reduced shoulder space, no physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Emergency vehicles use of bike or transit is unacceptable. • I believed the transit and vehicle lanes could be mixed like we already have in downtown streets
• No physical barrier between drivers and bike/pedestrian or transit. Un5l Sacramento pushes to enforce traffic laws the roads will be simply too dangerous to share with vehicles. Reduced shoulders and narrow lanes to lille to impede the most aggressive drivers who will simply use the bike path or shoulders. • No real concerns.
• All of the cons, men5oned
• No emergency lane
• Wider footprint, no physical barrier, 5ming of lights for light rail • None.
• I don’t think cars should have access, we should encourage people to take transit • Lost opportunity to share lanes and space with light rail. Light rail lanes are dead space when not in use.
• Drivers on Sacramento suck ass. Crossing these other lanes will suck because our police don’t enforce driving rules at all.
• Wait 5mes
• No bike path barrier
• No physical barriers, drivers are crazy and will drive in the bike lanes to get around traffic. Car only lanes encourage driving over other travel modes. • No physical barrier between cars and bikes or pedestrians • Too big. Too costly. Opposed to auto bridge through parkway. • As a cyclist, I do not like the idea of emergency vehicles using the bike path; poten5ally dangerous.
• i don't like any of it
119
• Confusing for dumb drivers
• Lack of emergency response
• Conges5on possible
• Nothing cri5cally wrong here, just not my preferred op5on • No barrier separa5ng bike and pedestrian path from traffic. • The lack of a physical barrier to protect pedestrians and bicyclists is criminal. If the bike trails are at least raised so that they're not on the same grade as the car lanes then it can be alright, but just having a painted bike lane sends a message to pedestrians and cyclists that the city does not care about their safety. • It would ruin the American river parkway
• No shoulder lanes. No physical barriers separa5ng pedestrians. • the cons don't seen great
• Long lights and traffic due to separate car and rail lines • No separa5on for bicyclists on the bridge. Paint doesn’t stop cars from hiing bikes or pedestrians. This directly conflicts with Vision Zero Sacramento’s goals of elimina5ng traffic fatali5es.
• None
• It doesn't seem efficient for the space, while adding wait 5me at traffic signals. • Addi5onal wait 5me due to light rail signal
• No separa5on for pedestrians and bike traffic
• no cars please
• Don't like separated modes travel, doesn't feel normal. • No emergency lane
• None
• Too many cons to out way pros
• Pedestrians during an emergency
• No barrier between pedestrians and traffic. Pedestrians and bikes are limited to one side of the road.
• Lack of shoulders and emergency access/lanes. Current transit (rail, buses, etc.) schedules are not frequent, which means a significant por5on of lanes won’t be in regular use. This might also encourage drivers to illegally use lanes or accidentally use those lanes.
• "No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Addi5onal wait 5me at the Richards Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden Highway intersec5ons due to separate light rail signal 5ming."
• No shoulder space.
• More driving.
• Breakdowns impeding traffic.
• Long lead 5me to build
• No barrier between cars and bikes
120
• no emergency lane.
• There should be a barrier placed, even if small, between pedestrian/bike traffic and vehicle traffic.
• None
• No physical barriers to protect cyclist and people. The delay at either intersec5on for the Transit. That would be dependent of transit service schedule. • No physical Barrier
• maybe not the most efficient use of space
• No shoulders for accidents and breakdowns could stall traffic on the bridge en5rely. • No barrier between bike path and/or sidewalk and vehicle lane. • Increased opportuni5es for cyclist-vehicle interac5on. No physical barrier between bikes and cars.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Would be great get to have barrier between the bike lane and vehicle lane. • Traffic backing up due to traffic turning right or lec on garden highway • auto lanes. just no auto lanes.
• Concerned about addi5onal wait 5me at Richards Blvd and Truxel. • There are vehicles on the bridge, remove them and slim down the bridge. • None.
• Backed up traffic and accidents
• If there are no barriers between cyclists and cars, cyclists are more likely to hit by a car and die. I avoid cycling in the road with cars because there are far too many distracted drivers on the road. I rarely see cars pulled over by police. There needs to be a barrier between cars and cyclists.
• Same as first. Need good connec5on for bike track
• Having separate lightwell lanes seems like a waste of space and money • No barrier
• Not the best op5on
• All the listed cons
• Just put a physical barrier between the vehicles and bike lanes. • none
• Everything listed in the CON sec5on!!
• none
• Speed control
• The bridge should have mul5ple lanes for cars with no transit line. • no emergency lane
• No physical barrier between bikes/pedestrians and vehicle traffic • Emergency vehicles taking up space, but again, I don't think that would happen frequently enough to jus5fy Plan A. I also don't like that it's missing barriers between 121
pedestrians and traffic, I don't understand why that wasn't included. Looking at the illustra5on, it seems like it would be simple to include, if a lille more costly. • no shoulder space
• The en5re bridge concept to handle traffic from autos, trucks, trains, buses, etc. • No protec5on between peds, bikes, and vehicle. Maybe swapping transit and vehicle can provide some protec5on, but s5ll unsafe against reckless drivers • There’s already a bridge to the River District off Northgate Blvd • Emergency access
• No physical barriers protec5ng bike lane
• none
• 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?
• It's too cramped and it seems like it would get backed up way too easily • One lane on Truxel? That is nuts!
• Not enough room
• It won't be safe having pedestrians trying to navigate the bridge without barriers between them and the cars and bikes.
• Higher cost; no shoulder
• Waste of funds
• No physical barrier separa5ng bike/pedestrians from vehicle traffic. • This is prely but very unsafe for pedestrians
• No physical barriers for bikes and pedestrians
• Seems like it will take a long 5me to build and gain approval. • Crosswalks may be a problem.
• Emergency vehicles don't have enough space
• No physical barrier
• none
• none
• no shoulder
• Safer than A
• Put in a barrier from car and bike lanes. Keep transit for rail and bus with emergency op5on
• Need more lanes for cars
• no emergency lane
• Not an efficient use of bridge width for vehicles and transit. • Not enough car lanes
• While it’s arguably the best out of the 3, I really don’t like that there’s no separa5on between the cars and bikes, making it extremely hazardous for them. Have the emergency vehicles use the transit lanes instead.
122
• "No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Addi5onal wait 5me at the Richards Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden Highway intersec5ons due to separate light rail signal 5ming."
• None
• Costs too much
• Emergency vehicle sharing bike lane
• no shoulder space for breakdowns
• Why can’t another bridge for bikes and pedestrians be isolated but build it right next to the lanes.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from motor vehicles. • Lack of barriers between bike lanes and cars.
• Added traffic on Richards Blvd.
• ambulance in bike lane
• no physical barrier between pedestrians/bikes from traffic. • Combine sidewalk & bicycle lanes in to mul5-use path & create space for single emergency lane/shoulder between (shiced) auto lanes.
• pedestrians only have access to one side of the bridge making it a boring walk and priori5zing RT
• Light Rail doesn't serve Natomas already. What's the point of train tracks?! Just take Discovery Park.
• Need more traffic lanes. Use one rail line. No emergency lane. • No physical barrier for bike and pedestrian lanes.
• Less protec5on for bicyclers
• Conges5on due to breakdowns and light rail signals
• No cars!!
• No emergency lane. No barrier protec5on to pedestrian and bike lanes. • No shoulder for vehicle breakdowns. Also, nonsensical drivers might abuse the transit lane and bike lane to pass other drivers because they're impa5ent. • No physical barrier
• wai5ng for RT, already a pain on Richard's and Del Paso • None.
• Refer to Op5on A
• I already have trouble turning off of my street on to Truxel due to traffic. Addi5onal traffic would make it nearly impossible.
• Very restric5ve
• No physical Barrie’s with the pedestrian
• Less safe for bikes due to no physical barrier
• Concerned about cars that break down or if there is an accident. Could cause major delays.
• Everything other than cars
123
• None… the “cons” seem loaded and only care about Car issues and nothing else. The bridge isn’t going to be that long nor get “backed up” far. Not to say a car will never break down but I wouldn’t build a permanent structure for a poten5al minor hindrance ie a car breaking down. You’d be sacrificing light rail and bikes 100% for the 1% of the 5me that a car accident happens. The cars have the freeway. This bridge should focus on local traffic and services
• All the cons
• Know that it is 5ght
• Addi5onal wait 5me
• No light rail.. this is insane
• heavy traffic with transit Lane
• No physical barrier between bikes and vehicles
• all the cons listed
• Bike lanes need a physical barrier from auto lanes.
• Lack of an emergency lane, can imagine occasional big conges5ons, also obstruc5ons when speed is important for emergency services.
• 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
• Too many cons with this op5on.
• I wish the cycle lanes had a barrier between them and the car traffic. • Only one lane of travel in each direc5on for cars. Dangerous passing possible. • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians.
• All of those listed in the cons make this a bad op5on in my opinion. • The traffic and pedestrian safety
• Nothing
• Non-separa5on of motor vehicles and pedestrians
• Separated lanes encourage people to drive faster, less cau5ously. • Narrower. Wait 5mes. Traffic.
• Lack of separa5on of bikes from cars.
• Emergency vehicles should not be driving in lanes dedicated to biking • None.
• Speed impacts regarding bike safety.
• Emergency vehicles will have to use bike path or transit lanes for access • Lille less efficient
• No physical barriers
• There is no shoulder or emergency lane in case of breakdown. • The lack of physical barrier separa5ng vehicles form bikes/pedestrians. • Vehicle breakdowns and emergency traffic using non vehicle spaces • Nothing in par5cular
124
• That bikes will only have access to one side of the bridge. The best view from the bridge will be to the west, towards the confluence of the rivers--hopefully the bike/ped path will be on the west side.
• None
• Can you seriously not find or build an extra 8 inches to create a barrier between the cars and bikes? That doesn't seem credible.
• Bike and pedestrians are not separated from cars. No dedicated lane for emergency vehicles.
• Separa5on of bikes and pedestrians and for emergency vehicles • Extended red-light 5ming.
• inefficient use of lanes when no light rail on bridge • Wait 5mes
• "1. Needs a barrier separa5ng traffic and peds/bicycles. • 2. There are no transit stops on the bridge so there is really no reason the traffic and transit lanes can’t be combined….transit will move with traffic, off the structure, they can be separated."
• n/a
• emergency vehicles must use bike paths or transit lanes; no barriers separa5ng vehicles from pedestrians and bikes (drivers drive too fast and no separa5on is dangerous). • None
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Pedestrian lane looks wide. Cars in the right lane will have to get through the lec lane to breakdown in the bike lanes. Can you use only one transit lane and schedule the trains so they don’t hit each other head on on the bridge?
• Intersec5ons on each end of bridge may be tricky to avoid conflicts • "Emergency vehicles will have to use bike path or transit lanes for access • Vehicle breakdowns will impede traffic due to the reduced shoulder space • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Addi5onal wait 5me at the Richards Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden Highway intersec5ons due to separate light rail signal 5ming."
• Unprotected walking/biking path.
• Don't build it - it looks dumb.
• Wouldn't there be an uneven weight burden and long term wear and tear to the bridge under this op5on?
• Bike path needs a physical barrier from cars. Paint is not enough. Cars never get transit signals right either, so trains will have run ins with cars • No breakdown lane for cars
• No physical separa5on for peds and bikes from drivers. • Reduced vehicle speeds
• the bike lanes need to be at vehicle grade
125
• No physical separa5on from bike/peds
• Need for both sidewalk and cycle track given likely low pedestrian demand. • "delays
• breakdowns
• cost"
• All of the stated “Cons”
• 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's no barrier between the bike path and the vehicle lane. There's no barrier between the bike path and the sidewalk.
• That emerg vehicles will have to use bike path or transit lanes, that there will be no physical barrier between pedestrians & bikes from vehicles and that the reduced shoulder space will impece traffic when vehicles break down or get in an accident • Too big, too impacul, don't need cars.
• Too. Not enough room.
• None.
• Cost, no physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles, bikes will have to share the road with emergency vehicles
• No enforcement presence.
• Removing prime riparian habitat is a detriment to wildlife who are already stressed with homeless individuals, their loose dogs etc.
• I really hate the idea of emergency vehicles speeding down the bike lane. That should definitely not be an op5on ever.
• "if I have a vehicle breakdown where exactly do I pull over...in the bike lane? where walkers are? insane
• NA
• "There should be physical barriers between car traffic and vulnerable road users and transit. Car drivers are horrible and WILL drive over the rubber curb and get stuck in front of the light rail or God forbid kill someone on foot or on wheels. • Fire Department shouldn't get an instant veto on projects because their trucks won't fit.
Why does the occasional fire truck some how deserve 2-3 lanes in every direc5on but SacRT can't get two lanes to themselves with intrusion protec5on? Not to men5on the fact that emergencies will be much less likely to happen with proper barriers in place." • Shared Transit lane with vehicles would be beler than rail-only. • Emergency vehicles
• see cons above
• Not enough traffic lanes for automobiles.
• No physical barriers between car and bike and pedestrians. • Log down and delayed with objec5ons from environmentalist and Neighbors, etc. and more expensive
126
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • no physical barrier between cars and bikes/pedestrians is more dangerous. • emergency vehicles shouldn't be using transit lanes or bike lanes; needs shoulders • No access for emergency vehicle and no physical separa5on between vehicles and bikes or pedestrians.
• Goes in the wrong direc5on—we need to reduce VMT, not offer more driving op5ons. • Seems a lille much. Rail separa5on seems too much.
• No concerns
• Interested to know if signal 5ming separa5on facilitates beler transit service. If it helps transit that's fine but if not that's a concern.
• Less space and physical separa5on for bicyclists
• car breakdown means long backup, traffic delays, poor emergency access? • Space is wasted with separa5on of vehicle traffic. Would be beler without auto access. • All the cons
• Vehicle breakdowns will be a problem
• No pedestrian or bike path on both sides of bridge
• None.
• none
• "Vehicle breakdowns will impede traffic due to the reduced shoulder space • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • Less auto traffic able to cross
• Lack of protec5on for bicyclers and pedestrians.
• NONE
• No concerns.
• Cars will hit pedestrians
• See 8c. This is a terrible idea.
• Reduced shoulders will not reduce speeds. This is too wide a structure. See comments about re: op5on A. These plans are trying to accommodate too many types of users. • More congested on bike and pedestrian lanes.
• Op5on C is best.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • No emergency lane
• Costs to build
• Not sure it helps w auto traffic will likely result in backups in arterial connec5on points • traffic jams, no physical barriers. Light rail should not be considered for this. • Should not share with trains - dangerous! Not enough vehicle lanes -- should be 2 lanes each way.
• Totally unrealis5c and illogical
• The light at truxel and garden highway already sucks with traffic geing on 5, I'm not sure if light rail will hurt
127
• A lot of poten5al oncoming traffic flows.
• Do t like emergency vehicles outside of lanes
• Why car, again? Keep ALL vehicles out of bike lanes (including emergency vehicles). • 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.
• no barrier between pedestrians and vehicles. no shoulder • seems inefficient to not have the bike path and walking lanes combined • No barriers for bicyclists. I dont feel smaller lanes reduce speeds. • All the Cons listed
• Room for cyclists to stop, ie flat 5re, or mechanical or medical problem • Please see response in 6 other.
• Needs a barrier between the bike path and the car lanes. Add that and this is the best op5on.
• need physical barriers separa5ng pedestrians & bike from vehicles • not a good plan. Light rail will lose out to bus rapid transit so all that space will be wasted. the bridge needs to have at least 4 general purpose lanes. • Looks like you can add the barricade between vehicle lane and bike lane. • It looks like a small separator between bike and side walk is possible maybe through small height difference.
• "No
• Barriers"
• No shoulders to accommodate breakdowns. No physical barrier separa5ng bicycles and autos.
• No space for emergency vehicles and no physical barrier between bike/pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Increased traffic conges5on at lights. • No barrier between peds and traffic
• Bikes and pedestrians aren't protected; costs associated with road maintenance is great, and will increase wear and tear of bridge.
• This would be great with a barrier separa5ng the bike path from the vehicle lanes. • none.
• Cars
• None
• Vehicle traffic and possible crossover to bike lanes
• none
• Fuel-burning vehicles included, only painted lines separa5ng bicycles from fuel-burning vehicle
128
• Emergency vehicle having to use bike or transit lanes. No shoulder for broken down vehicles to pull off and keep trafficking flowing. No physical barriers between cars and bikes and pedestrians.
• Keeps
• No physical barrier between bikes and vehicles. This is not ideal and poten5ally unsafe. • None.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Don’t like narrow lanes (hate I street bridge for same reason). Should be two lanes in either direc5on (or 3 changing direc5on of middle lane based on traffic palern/needs??? — a.m. 2 into town, p.m. 2 going into Natomas??. Need a separate Emergency lane.
• No shoulder. The delay from the seperate light rail lanes. • allows cars
• Too wide.
• no physical separa5on between vehicular traffic and bicycling • None
• It’s too wide, unnecessary. I also don’t like the lack of a physical barrier between vehicles and bicycles.
• No physical barrier from the real danger to people-- cars. Please don't do this. We need to stop puing non-cars in danger.
• No emergency lane
• Emergency vehicles access
• None
• There will be too much traffic and conges5on. It’s not worth it • Some of the cons men5oned will not have solu5ons and might even be more than an incovenience.
• There is literally no reason why you can't have a physical barrier set up to protect bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Too wide. eliminate vehicle lanes and reduce light rail to one lane. • No barrier between bike and car traffic.
• No physical barriers for cyclists make it unsafe.
• Many. Space on street. Safety. Increase in crime. Light rail is not a viable op5on. RT has buses that can provide same transporta5on without tearing up streets • None
• Light rail mixed in with all the other modes of transporta5on • None
• wider and unnecessary complica5ons in different transit types (light rail and vehicles can share
• N/a
• Nothing
129
• looks expensive to build and maintain with tax dollars • Space too limited for emergency access, and overall width may not be enough. I wish there was space for an emergency, shoulder or 3rd flex lane for the cars. • Poten5al vehicle break downs impeding traffic. Conges5on at intersec5ons • So many ways to get downtown, less save the money and create more shelters downtown for the homeless.
• None
• Tiempo de espera en las intersecciones
• None.
• no emergency lane; no physical barrier for pedestrians & bikes; impact on area once river crossed
• I dislike that there are no barriers to protect pedestrians • Traffic
• Narrow roads. Separa5on of paths seem like a great idea, but there will be walkers on the walking path and vice versa
• "Noice pollu5on from cars.
• No physical separa5on between cars/bikes"
• No shoulders or extra space for emergencies
• 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. • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles? Many pedestrians and bikers will be injured and killed.
• Missing barriers from car to bike lane and bike to pedestrian area • safety for cyclists and pedestrians without protected lanes • No physical barrier between vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians. • No barriers between bikes, pedestrians and cars. Emergency vehicles will have to use bike paths.
• Cars! Take cars off the bridge!
• No barrier for pedestrians, no emergency lane
• It seems that this layout would incur more traffic conges5on. This also looks to slow down emergence response as they would be stuck in traffic or have to alempt to drive past cyclists and pedestrians. It does not see as safe. • None
• No space for Cars stalling out, only one side sidewalks to enjoy the river. I see many contributors in this design for traffic issues.
• 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.
• the emergency access
130
• Too wide. No protec5on for bikes. Can fix this by elimina5ng car lanes and only having bike, pedestrian, and light rail. Also eliminates all other issues that cars create. • Could you do BRT instead of trains?
• None.
• Traffic backup along garden highway. Already have enough pollu5on from that road, the exhaust load when traffic sits on there between truxel and northgate sucks as I live against garden highway.
• No real protec5on for bikers. The separate lanes for light rail seems wasteful since they don’t run as ocen.
• I'm concerned with the addi5onal traffic at the truxel intersec5on making it even more difficult to get to I-5. It would likely back up garden hwy traffic all the way to make apartment. Concerned about the car lanes in general and increased traffic. • too wide, less safe
• Do not let cars on this thing. Truxel is already a high speed drag strip that encourages people to drive too fast. Allowing them in this bridge will serve no purpose besides increasing car conges5on where they do not belong and decreasing the safety for anyone outside of a car
• Bicycle safety
• It's wider than the smallest footprint with a greater poten5al environmental impact. • Bike and ped only on one side of street; may require more street crossings at either end.
What will ends of bridge look like?
• "Limited separa5on between the modes. There is lille to stop errant or scofflaw drivers from using bike and transit lanes as their own personal passing lanes with lille to no consequence.
•
• Note: I take issue with you making the “con” list longer here. It seems like you’re deliberately finding reasons as “cons” to discourage the public from selec5ng this op5on."
• Slow traffic, emergency vehicle issues
• 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).
• no sidewalk on the other side
• Vehicle lane. It should only be accessible to buses and emergency vehicles. There is already a highway for vehicles. No barrier for separa5ng pedestrians will have lower use since its not safe.
• Cars using bike and transit lanes.
• the cost and space taken up by light rail
• East of car and transit space being separate, too large. • More roads with auto lanes only increase driving, fill up and increase air pollu5on.
Impacts the Parkway big 5me.
131
• Wider Bridge that has space that will most ocen be empty when there is no train • Unprotected bike and pedestrian paths. Autos could use the bike lane as a go around unless there is a barrior of some sort.
• None.
• Get rid of the cars, concern lack of shoulder (if you insist on the cars), no protected bike lane. If you have the op5on ALWAYS pay extra for protected bike lanes. This is the only way to ensure more biking.
• I am concerned that there is no physical barrier between the bike route and cars. • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Why can there not be a physical barrier between pedestrian and auto lanes? This will help to further narrow the roadway and decrease speeds. No sidewalk on one side of the bridge.
• Too many lanes
• All
• no physical barrier between pedestrians/bikes from vehicles. Reduced shoulder space is dangerous for break downs.
• I’m concerned that city planners and CalTrans will priori5ze vehicles in each op5on.
Vehicles already have 3 crossings available to them in a short reach of the river. SR-160 in par5cular is very underu5lized for its width and poten5al capacity. • addi5onal wait 5mes at intersec5ons
• Not enough protec5on for humans from vehicles. Needs solid bollards between car and cycle lane for safety - not flex posts.
• Lack of physical barrier between pedestrians/bicycles and cars. • No physical barriers between cars and people.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Way too dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.
• Wish there was a barrier between cars and bikes
• Barrier needed between bikes and peds.
• Bike lane is unprotected from car traffic, making this bike lane more dangerous than the one in Op5on A. No dedicated emergency vehicle access also seems more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.
• emergency lane?
• Added wait 5mes due to signal 5ming. Presumably these could be minimized with good traffic control design?
• Lack of physical barrier between vehicles and bike/ped. Long wait 5mes at intersec5ons.
Poten5al for breakdowns and emergencies to create more chaos when blocking lanes and impeding on the bike path or transit lanes.
• Probably the issues around the signal wait 5mes that might cause more road aggression or maybe accidents
• no barrier b/w pedestrians and vehicles
• No physical barriers between bikes and cars
132
• none
• Wait 5me and vehicle breakdowns (no shoulder)
• It is unsafe for there to not be a physical barrier separa5ng the cars from the bikes.
Further, class II tracks are ocen not respected by cars, so it is necessary to build physical barriers to keep them in their lane. Such physical barriers would also likely slow down traffic, which is a good thing. I would like this one beler if they were mixed use lanes for cars and transit with shoulder for emergency access, and completely separate sidewalk and bike path
• No shoulder
• I don't like that it doesn't have protected bike or pedestrian lanes I don't like that it makes it hard to get to where you want to go from The right or lec side you would have to cross over traffic to get where you want to go
• Traffic backup concerns
• The concerns you list.
• Lack of barrier between motorized traffic and bicycle lanes. • No place for emergency vehicles
• Looks terrible. Feels like too big and urban of a city. Keep Sacramento's charm. • Bike and pedestrian safety
• Automobiles driving onto non-automobiles lanes out of frustra5on that the bridge wasn't built strictly for them; no barriers protec5ng non-automobiles from recklessness • Less dis5nct barrier between traffic and cyclists. Shun5ng cyclists/pedestrians to one side.
• cost and s5ll encourages people to drive.
• absolutely need separated and barriered path for bikes and walkers, and this doesn't have it.
• Unneeded new bridge for vehicle/transit.
• No barrier between vehicles and bikes
• No shoulder
• 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. • "- Why are there two Transit Lanes - why not just one that goes both ways, just not at the same 5me.
• - No shoulders could cause an issue. "
• bike lane not protected
• "Where is the money coming from? Why this bridge before fixing the rest of the city streets?
• "
• Op5on B will not improve ingress/egress into North Sacramento. • Needs physical barrier between cars and bikes.
• emergency vehicle access
133
• Vehicles are unnecessary, they can take the freeway. No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles.
• Personal autos allowed. Ped/bike access restricted to only one side of bridge. • Emergency vehicles using bike lanes.
• Bike lane will be taken up by cars in emergencies or breakdowns. • no barrier between pedestrians/bikes & motor vehicle traffic • I don’t like that it does not protect pedestrians. Sacramento leads the state in pedestrian fatali5es, more needs to be done to protect us.
• No emergency or shoulder lanes. No barriers for biking and walking. • Cyclist safety
• no shoulder
• I don't like that the pedestrians don't have a physical barrier between them and the cars. • Please see concerns with op5on A
• Autos on the bridge. No room for emergency vehicles to bypass cars. • no physical barrier protec5on from vehicles; separate light rail 5ming • Cost, wait 5me, delays for emergency and disabled vehicles. • None
• Light rail trailer should be in the middle or outside lane on bridge • Lack of a physical barrier means it’s not really safe for pedestrians or bicycles • Not enough protec5on for bikes/peds
• Bike path not being physically separated
• DO NOT PUT AN UNPROTECTED BIKE LANE NEXT TO CARS. PEOPLE WILL GET HIT. Switch transit and car lane at least.
• Dedicated private vehicle lanes will increase VMTs by making motor vehicle trips easier/faster.
• Wait 5mes increase no barriers
• I do not like how the sidewalk is on only one side of the bridge. Pedestrians will only have access to views of one side of the bridge.
• No barriers between vehicles and pedestrians/bikes.
• Safety. Cyclist and pedestrian need a solid barrier between them and vehicle lane. • Why would emergency vehicles need to use bike lane. This is a short sec5on of road and emergency vehicles should be able to maneuver around transit and cars. Need barrier between cars and bikes and peds
• Wider s5ll op5on affec5ng more habitat on the American River Parkway • No shoulder.
• safety issues
• It should be wider
• I think having cars on this route at all is problema5c. • No physical barrier separa5ng bikes from vehicles
• bike lanes aren't protected
134
• Emergency vehicles path of travel
• No extra lane for emergency or breakdowns, will cause traffic near Richard’s and garden hwy. no physical barriers for pedestrians. This op5on is a NO • No physical barrier between bike/pedestrian and car lanes. • Single auto lane each side has no shoulders for disabled vehicles • more commuters using secondary roads through neighborhoods to bypass I5 conges5on • Cars speeding and veering into bike lanes
• My biggest concern is weight distribu5on on the bridge. May be uneven. • Lack of bike/pedestrian separa5on.
• There must be physical separa5on between vehicle traffic and cyclist/pedestrians. This will discourage low courage cyclists from taking the journey. Also, it opens up humans to geing hurt. We want people to use their cars less frequently. Let’s make this bridge safe, accessible, and welcoming to non-automobile travelers for a cleaner, safer future. • Too auto oriented. I would prefer no private automobiles. • Emergency access and just one lane
• would encourage increased driving over transit, air quality and climate impacts increase, larger footprint, more habitat loss
• Faster cyclists would be forced to take the traffic lane, or to use the mul5-use path which would put faster users and slower users right next to each other--not safe. Also I don't like the grade separa5on between the bike path and the vehicle lanes--that looks like a hazard. Would prefer no grade separa5on, but if it's needed for some reason it should occur between the bike lanes and the sidewalk. As a cyclist I don't think this is a good or safe configura5on.
• No barrier between pedestrians and vehicles.
• Access for emergency vehicles.
• None
• Light rail isn't being used. Who rides it to make it profitable? • Not enough transit use or frequent enough train service to warrant their own dedicated lanes
• Imprac5cal
• All that is listed above.
• The separa5on for bike and pedestrians and the separate light 5ming • Same reason as op5on A
• None
• Addi5onal wait 5me.
• See above sadness op5on a bad idea
• Emergency vehicles and breakdowns
• Cars
• Make bike path also the emergency lane.
• S5ll does not seem op5mal
135
• 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.
• Transit crossover intersec5on could be a challenge for rush hour 5mes. • No emergency vehicle access due to space.
• Emergency vehicles using bike lanes
• The bike lane being used as an emergency lane
• No physical barrier between bikes and vehicles
• Vehicles pollu5on, light rail would bring crime, already have many means of traveling north/south by vehicles.
• None
• No emergency lane.
• Concerned about emergency vehicles using the bike path. • "Lack of emergency lane
• Bike path takes up a lot of room "
• No emergency vehicle path.
• "We have so many other needed road improvements and repairs and other programs that would be a beler use of those funds.
• No emergency places to stop.
• Lack of barriers protec5ng bikes from autos
• Vehicle breakdowns
• No lanes for emergencies.
• Lack of shoulder.
• No break-down lane and no physical barriers between vehicles and pedestrians/bicycles.
Emergency vehicles blocked.
• No physical barrier between peds and cyclists from cars, reduced emergency vehicle access, wider bridge.
• No barrier is dangerous
• "Overkill. Too large a project footprint. Redundant.
• See my answers to previous ques5ons."
• Cars driving through Discovery Park. No realis5c plan for light rail. No commitment to increased bus or bus rapid transit.
• We don't need vehicle lanes. 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.
• Limited choices for emergency vehicles and broken down vehicles impeding traffic lanes.
Longer wait 5mes due to separate light rail signal 5ming. • No physical barriers separa5ng cyclists from cars.
• Only 2 lanes for vehicles.
136
• Addi5onal wait 5me at the Richards Blvd/Truxel Rd and Truxel Rd/Garden Highway intersec5ons due to separate light rail signal 5ming.
• How wide will it be?
• Too big and wide, and does not have a barrier to physically separate bikes and pedestrians from the cars.
• Lack of physical barriers. Wasted space on vehicle lanes. • Truxel would become a highway and it would be impossible to walk to the park or enjoy the community.
• A lack of physical separa5on from vehicle traffic endangers cyclist. The proposi5on that emergency vehicles would overtake pedestrian space is unsafe. Vehicular traffic should not be included on the bridge. Vehicular traffic currently has the most number of crossings on the river.
• I don’t like bikes and peds can only use one side of the bridge. I also don’t like that there’s no physical barrier separa5ng bicyclists from vehicle lane. • Seems a waste to have a separate transit lane
• None
• Need physical barrier for pedestrian and bike
• Light rail signaling causing poten5al delays. No physical barriers between pedestrian/bikes/vehicles.
• "Reduced shoulder space
• No babrriers"
• Lack of balance for bikes and peds to see the river from both sides. The view Cooridor is remarkable.
• Having to stop for light rail.
• Cars should not be on this bridge at all. Minimal (if any) ver5cal separa5on between car and bike/ped
• 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.
• "A physical barrier could be added to separate bikes and people from vehicles. • Op5on could use mul5-purpose path in lieu of sidewalk/bike path." • Destruc5on of environment
• The bike lane should be fully protected using K-Rail or other mechanism. • Lack of space for emergency vehicles
• Paint is not protec5on. There should be a concrete barrier at the absolute minimum between the bikes/peds and traffic. If this bridge is built with only paint or flex posts, there will be blood on the city's hands.
• no shoulders for vehicle breakdowns will cause major traffic. No physical barrier separa5ng vehicles from cyclists. Addi5onal wait 5mes at intersec5ons • Mixing of cars and cyclists and light rail will lead to collisions. 10a. What do you like about Op5on C?
137
• transit has its own separate lane
• Not much
• Having cars and light rail separate
• Not much
• Separate transit lane
• Seems like the most reasonable and safest op5on with being more direc5onally grouped • Transit has its own lanes.
• separa5ons of car and light rail have own lane. Light rail needs to have it's own path or it will get jammed by traffic then what is the point of riding rail. • Nothing
• Dedicated transit lanes.
• Very lille.
• Nothing
• I like that all modes are separated
• Not a lot. Too expensive. You state that reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will reduce traffic. Nothing slows traffic in this town, and bridges are inherently dangerous to begin with. Make this bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists only, please. • No automo5ve transit. Keep it safe and tourist friendly by allowing for a scenic gateway between North Sac and Downtown/Midtown. Allowing only biking and transit will make the bridge a des5na5on that would surpass even Tower Bridge. • Each vehicle lane has space for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns, each bike lane has a sidewalk adjacent, transit is in the middle
• Even though it’s the most expensive, I like all the separate lanes. Natomas is growing and geing more congested by the minute. We need to build for future numbers of vehicles that will be coming.
• separated modes of travel
• I do not like the plan in any way.
• Light rail is separated from the roads. Paths are direc5onally set. • Full separa5on, light rail in middle
• Cyclists and pedestrians are separated, transit can move unimpeded • None
• Transit, Walk, and Bike Lanes
• Transit is very connec5ve. It is the most reliable way to get cars off the road. • Nothing
• Nothing, there are cars
• Mul5modal
• Priori5za5on of public transit, separa5on of pedestrian walkway and bike lane. • Everybody is fully separate.
• Full separa5on, balance across bridge. Narrow lanes and shoulders to control vehicle speed. Emergency vehicles seem to have room to get through. 138
• This will be the best/safest for people not in cars. Break downs shouldn't be such a concern. Honestly, they happen, but people should maintain their cars and have some kind of idea if they're going to break down... Just don't drive. • All modes separated
• Nothing
• cars on opposing sides with trains in the middle
• Nothing
• bike lane
• See above
• Nothing.
• nothing
• Public transit op5on to help the elderly, low income and reduce intoxicated drivers • Bike lanes on either side allow easy exit in both direc5ons without having to poten5ally cross traffic
• Cycling lanes on the correct side for the flow of traffic. Separated public transit • Cycling lanes are on correct side for traffic flow
• Everything except the vehicles- there is no need to include cars. • Bicycle lanes are on the correct sides for traffic flow • Separa5on of traffic flow
• Transit is given a dedicated ROW.
• Nothing.
• Nothing
• Everyone is accommodated.
• If the bike lanes/sidewalk are grade-separated, I like this op5on too for the same reasons. It seems that emergency vehicles could travel in the transit median. Vehicle breakdowns are not a concern because drivers already have mul5ple op5ons in addi5on to this bridge.
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated and reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds.
• Clear direc5on of traffic for everyone.
• Again, not much
• Nothing.
• Seperated modes.
• Is most typical road design/familiar to users
• "All modes of travel separate
• Sidewalks and bike lanes on each side "
• All modes Of transporta5on supported.
• Nothing.
• Solves all the issues, it might cost more but does the job the right way I like this op5on • No lane sharing.
139
• nothing,
• See comments above - Truxel Bridge should be dropped. • Not as much as Op5on A.
• I'm okay with this design.
• Separate light rail transit lanes that wont be slowed by car traffic • I like the dedicated lanes per transporta5on type.
• This op5on seems most ideal
• Less contact with oncoming class 1 traffic. Less fric5on on the class one lanes. Bikes that break down Can be pushed on a sidewalk.
• Symmetry
• this seems like a very modern design and gives bike/ped access on both sides. • Traffic flows in the same direc5on for each mode of transporta5on. • It is well balanced and viable.
• Separated transit lane
• Nothing
• Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• No light rail
• Narrower lanes for traffic calming.
• All modes of transporta5on should be separated, car speeds will be decreased • This is good too
• This is beler than B, worse than A in my opinion
• Best of the 3 ideas but s5ll not needed
• Pedestrians have the op5ons to move and look at their side of the bridge. More focused on alterna5ve modes of transporta5on than cars. Cars may give more space to bicyclists by moving more into the transit lane.
• Bike access for both direc5ons of traffic.
• I like the transit in the center
• "travel modes separated
• reduced speeds"
• All modes separate
• Best op5on in my opinion. Even tho there’s no barrier I think flow of traffic is easier to understand and less confusion for drivers.
• Nothing
• I don't like it
• Direc5onal travel for bikes
• just make the bridge
• Every lane independent
• Nothing.
• Unrestricted travel for transit is a plus.
• No mixed use lanes.
140
• Separa5on
• best, given alterna5ves.
• separate bike lanes
• All modes are separated making travel safer for all. Keeping cars separate from public transit helps to make travel more efficient. Making public transit more efficient and consistent makes it a more viable alterna5ve to driving. Slowing car traffic is a proven method of increasing safety for all.
• Beler than B. Need buffer for bikes.
• raised and separated sidewalks and bike lanes, transit • Safest op5on.
• RT Green line
• seperated travel modes is good
• Separated direc5ons of travel.
• Like Op5on B above, but more limited.
• Nothing
• Separa5on of direc5ons of travel to reduce conflicts, dedicated transit lanes • Overall okay and beler than op5on A
• There is nothing redeemable about this plan.
• The listed “Pros” are acceptable. Like narrow slower motor vehicle lanes. • Everything. This is the most ideal op5on if we must include non-transit vehicles. • Full separa5on,
• Center LRT is efficient and aligns with extension up Truxel. Bike lane is separated by curb.
How wide are proposed lanes?
• All modes of travel are separated.
• Dedicated and separated bike lanes
• Accommodates transit and ac5ve transporta5on. Transit is separate from traffic. • Good layout and separa5on for all modes of travel
• I
• All lanes are included
• nothing, that is way too much to meet the goal of this project. • I like the fact that all traffic going in one direc5on has assigned lanes. • Connec5on with SacRT Green Line
• Good spacing of lanes
• Separa5on between pedestrian and bike traffic
• Control of vehicle speeds.
• Rail should be efficient
• not much
• No sharing lanes with transit
• Feels more balance with grouping of travel modes
• Separa5on
141
• Nothing
• Separately for Transit and cars.
• A place for everyone, and everyone in their place.
• Vehicles and transit do not share a lane
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes to help control vehicle speeds. • This seems the most friendly for all modali5es.
• Separa5on of cars and light rail
• Dedicated transit lanes
• One direc5onal bike lanes
• See above. I would like Light Rail to finally get to the airport. I moved to South Natomas because it was supposed to connect downtown (where I worked) and the airport (which I used a lot). This was 36 years ago. Regional Transit are fools because that is a route that would pay for itself. I am re5red and will leave the area soon because the county is stealing are only recrea5onal area (Discovery POark) from us. • This op5on seems the safest and most balanced, there are connec5ons on both sides to respec5ve roads/sidewalks/trails.
• This is the op5on I would go with. Everything is equal and there are redundancies for emergencies.
• This is my favorite op5on
• Nothing
• I do not like this op5on
• Transit lane are in the middle.
• Separated modes of travel
• no
• "Enhanced train flow
• "
• Narrower lanes to reduce speeds.
• Separates various travel modes.
• Seems like the best op5on for separa5on of foot, bike, car and transit traffic. Much more walking and biking space to encourage alt means of travel • All forms of traffic going same way on each side of bridge • The separate lanes make it easy to follow and intui5ve. Allowing the RT to go would make it more useful.
• Same fundamental issues that must be addressed first - no cars! • Speed limits lowered
• The complete segrega5on of traffic modes.
• Nothing
• None
• Transit has its own unimpeded lane of travel. I like that the bike path is separated from pedestrians.
142
• Separate lanes for pedestrians and bikes depending on direc5on • All of these op5ons are horrible. Widen I5 if you want to increase traffic flow capacity. • Keeps all modes of transporta5on separate.
• Sidewalk on both sides
• Bike lanes in direc5on of traffic
• Nothing
• Not sure
• All modes of transporta5on, best prac5ce for growing community and local businesses • All modes are separated.
• No
• No wasted space in the shoulder. The light rail having its own dedicated lanes is beler. • Light rail not stuck in traffic
• Pedestrians and cyclists s5ll accommodated, I guess
• It's safest for pedestrians.
• Best op5on
• nothing
• Safer for everyone
• I like this op5on. Each direc5on of traffic is separated and logical. • It’s actually the best. It saves some space too.
• Separate direc5ons and modes of travel
• All modes are separated.
• This is the best op5on, light rail needs to expand into Natomas and to the Airport • The most separa5on.
• This is the best op5on, but the cost might be prohibi5ve. • Nothing
• Nothing, really.
• The safety of the pros
• Nothing
• Low cost
• none
• Sick
• N/A
• Most separated of the three op5ons, ensures direc5onal consistency across all modes.
Enables a future LRT extension without much considera5on about car traffic mixing. • Inclusion of transit and bike/pedestrian path.
• This is the best op5on thus far. One way traffic flows in each direc5on, cars and transit are separated, and bike trails are separate from pedestrian trails. This is a great op5on despite the lack of physical barrier for the bike lane (which can easily and should s5ll be incorporated to this design via a raised bike path or just a small concrete barrier). • Seems legit!
143
• Separated car and rail
• No sharing transit lanes and automobile lanes.
• It would probably look beau5ful.
• I like the separa5on of the modes so travel.
• Nothing
• Dedicated transit and separated bike lanes
• Separate bike and walking bath, narrow road lanes control speeds, transit lanes. • Nothing.
• I like how they are all separated
• transit lane can be used for both transit and cars would work • Probably my favorite op5on.
• Evenly split, keeps transit lane separate from vehicle lane. • This is the way it is in most ci5es
• No
• It’s the best op5on
• There's a bike lane and sidewalk on each side of the bridge. • it's beler than op5on A, worse than B.
• Op5on C is nice and orderly with one direc5onal traffic lanes for cars, transit, bikes, and sidewalks.
• "All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds" • Everyone separated.
• Narrow lanes to reduce speed of vehicles.
• Bikes and pedestrians separated.
• Seems comparable to B
• Nothing
• This would be fine.
• accommodates mul5ple modes of transporta5on.
• Reduced vehicle speed.
• Not much
• I dont see any benefits to this version vs the other two • I like the one way pedestrian and bike lanes.
• This is the best op5on, as there is a clear delinea5on for vehicle lanes, transit, bike lanes, and sidewalks.
• fits all needs
• I like C the best
• Pedestrian views of the river
• nothing
• I really like this plan.
• That everything has it's own lane.
144
• Nothing
• All modes of travel are separate, but there must be a barrier between cars and cyclists.
That shouldn't even be an op5on.
• Like how bikes follow same direc5on of traffic as cars. • I do not like this op5on
• like the best
• All the pros
• The narrower lanes would help keep speeds low. Dedicated lanes for everyone. • not sure
• Nothing
• I don't like this op5on, too wide, and the most expensive • Nothing
• More organized.
• Don't like op5on C
• seems safest, since transit is contained beler
• Nothing
• Grade separa5on between bike/pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Dedicated transit lanes. • This could work too. I'm not the planning professional to measure the pros and cons to determine what will occur most on this bridge plan. If the wait 5me at the lights on Truxel will really back up traffic or if cost is too high? • Not much. I suppose it's nice that all traffic going one direc5on is together, and all traffic going the other way is together.
• Nothing
• I love that the transit line separates the traffic lanes • Nothing. Totally unsafe
• Nothing
• separa5on of different paths
• Everything is separate
• Lots of room
• Nothing
• I like this one the best, there's room for everything and it doesn't feel too cramped or dangerous
• Opposed to idea.
• Don’t support one direc5on bike lane
• It's the best op5on for public safety, and one lane can remain open if the other lane is closed due to an accident.
• Nothing
• Does give each mode a dedicated space.
• It priori5zes the light rail train efficiency. Cars are great but get people taking the train and get it to the airport in an efficient manner.
145
• Makes the most sense
• I like this design if the transit lane could also be used for vehicle traffic as mixed use. This is the best design in terms of flexibility, although I would move the bike lanes to one side separated by a wall.
• It is great.
• I like that everything is separate, both sides of the bridge has matching lanes. It will be more pleasing to the eye. Less confusion
• Dedicated space for light rail
• all modes supported
• separated modes of travel
• Separate lanes
• Nothing liked more than op5on B. Beler than op5on A because C (like B) is not car centric
• Nothing
• I love the separated modes of transit and direc5ons.
• "All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds" • Separate transit op5ons
• Please stop with the lightrail, its gross and full of homeless people • I don’t like this one
• all modes are separated
• This is the best op5on. Everyone has their own lanes in each direc5on. Seems to have a beler flow.
• Nothing.
• The central placement of the light rail line emphasizes this mode of transporta5on as priority. This along with reduced car speeds due to narrow lanes, will encourage light rail use.
• I like the separa5on of everything and controlled speed. • This looks like the best op5on if only one lane of vehicle traffic in both direc5ons. I think transit lanes should definitely have their own dedicated lanes. • Transit and vehicles have separate lanes.
• separated pedestrian and bike paths
• Beler than A
• best one, balanced access for all users. one direc5on for bike la es will avoid incidents • Nothing
• Beler than Op5on A. I s5ll think op5on B is beler.
• Indifferent about this approach
• This survey is too long and conplicated. People will not conplete it. • Nothing
• Ques5onable
146
• Separate pedestrian and bike lanes.
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated from each other. • Separa5on of modes
• everything us separate
• All modes separated.
• Beler than A or B. S5ll would be trapped on my street. • Simplified method for rail
• Most expensive
• Nothing.
• Cars
• Best op5on so far
• I prefer this op5on — seeing transit whizz by in traffic might inspire use of rt? • Opportunity to make the center transit lanes mixed-use. • Too much info
• Separate lanes
• no
• Narrow lanes to slow vehicles. Bike lanes on each side. • separate walking lane
• It's the most visually appealing because everything is symmetrical. • Neat separa5on of func5ons as indicated in descrip5on. • Nothing
• I feel this is the op5on that makes the most sense and is the safest for all methods of transporta5on.
• Separa5on is good
• Bike traffic lanes match car traffic lanes. Train lanes are separate from car lanes. • "All
• Modes of travel being separated. "
• Seems to move along faster
• Beler
• Nothing
• Nothing. This is a 4-lane auto bridge in disguise.
• Green line separated
• Most comprehensive solu5on
• Mass transit!
• not much
• This is my favorite of the 3 op5ons. I like this set-up the best. • Separa5ng all modes and direc5ons of travel.
• Every mode is separated
• Nothing in par5cular
147
• Wider vehicle lanes. I don't like the idea of narrow lanes as a traffic calming measure--it also seems to be a bit dangerous.
• I like the traffic flow on each side
• Seems clearly beler than A but worse than B.
• Dedicated lanes for each purpose
• Designated transit lanes and wide
• only the theory.
• symmetry
• Light rail
• I really like that modes of various transporta5on are available on either side of the bridge. This concept makes a lot of sense.
• one direc5onal bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides is nice (and probably safer), but less desirable due to limited connec5on to Jed Smith trail • Everything.
• Nothing
• Each car lane has an adjacent bike lane to break down in. • Nothing
• not much different from Op5on B. Do not like at all
• It's okay if you need to compromise.
• This looks the most balanced but there are no dedicated emergency lanes • Makes the most sense
• I like the synchroniza5on of travel direc5on by mode of transit. • Mass transit separa5ng everything.
• Priority modes per the general plan (ped, bike, transit) have their own lanes. • Separated vehicle travel
• Poten5al for lower speeds. Gives transit parity in priority with vehicle traffic. • Nothing
• Everything
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• Bike and pedestrian path separa5on
• The transit lane provides a physical separa5on between vehicle lanes. • the separa5on of modes
• LRT and bikes.
• Same answer as op5on B
• I like A beler
• Nothing.
• This is definitely my favorite. I like having everything on each side going the same direc5on.
• Nothing
• I like that transit has dedicated lanes.
148
• nothing
• NA
• I like this arrangement of lanes the best but there needs to be physical protec5on. • Direc5onal split is easy to understand.
• everyone moves in same direc5on, avoids headon collissions. Everyone has their own clearly marked lane
• nothing
• The separa5on of all travel modes.
• I don't like it because it doesn't seem prac5cal for bikes and pedestrians. • Dangerous for bicycles -//no way
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• do not like
• One direc5on bike lanes
• Nothing
• no advantage over B
• Narrower vehicle lanes are good.
• It will separate the cars a bit so it will be safer
• Good op5on
• Nothing
• makes sense to sort traffic direc5on.
• Having of and bike access on both sides of bridge.
• All the pros
• Everything is separated.
• It's the nicest op5on in my opinion--if there is going to be a new bridge. • Don’t like
• Op5on C just makes more sense
• Like this BEST
• Ability to have Light Rail to the Airport - a #1 priority! • not a fan
• I like this even more than B for all the same reason but gives a much beler flow of direc5on.
• Nothing not a fan
• I like op5on C
• indifferent
• NOTHING. Data going back more than 20 years CLEARLY show light rail has NO posi5ve effect on travelers going/coming from the airport.
• Wider lanes
• Everyone has its own lane
• Transit will not cause delays. Everyone has space.
• Serves the most people and means of traveling
149
• All forms of transporta5on or accommodated.
• Best and safest op5on.
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• Driving is further separated
• separated modes and direc5on of travel
• It's ok
• Expanded light rail access to people living north of downtown • Nothing! Terrible idea. We don’t need a bridge to bring homeless to Natomas • Seems best op5on
• It's direc5onal - easier for cyclists and walkers.
• dedicated transit lane
• Looks nicer
• Nothing. The money needed to invest in this unwanted bridge would be put to beler use by cleaning this city up and fixing roads. No one wants to go DT as in previous years.
There is no growth or thriving ac5vity. Restaurants, night life, fes5vals - dismal. People don't feel safe & the city is ugly - our Capitol of CA. • Separa5on of all traffic
• Please see response in 6 other.
• Not much
• Separated transit and biking lanes
• nothing
• this would be good if you turned the transit lanes into mixed use lanes. • It feels the most comfortable due to all the space and separa5on. • Seda5on of light rail and auto traffic.
• This is the most balanced looking design esthe5cally speaking • Transit has its own lanes
• Separated modes. Dedicated space for light rail
• I like that transit has its own travel lanes.
• Like the idea of light rail going to the airport
• Sidewalks on both sides.
• Bike and walk lanes
• this is a good op5on, with all modes of transporta5on provided for in a conven5onal and easy to understand way.
• Bike lane on both sides of design
• I like this model as well, safest op5on for all travelers • Slower traffic. Dedicated bike and pedestrian lanes.
• Same as op5on b
• It is the best of the 3 op5ons.
• Separate lanes for all typea of traffic
• easiest concept for American drivers ;-(
150
• Good provision for bicyclists and pedestrians .
• I don’t like it.
• Nothing
• all modes separated, bike lanes on both sides of the road is beler flexibility for cyclists. • Do not like it at all. It's like we are not being respecul to fauna & flora cohabitants. • Having the light rail in between the vehicle lanes could poten5ally prevent vehicular collisions with other vehicles.
• Nothing
• Lower car speed. Dedicated lanes. I love the green line, geing to the airport on transit from downtown is a must.
• Everything!
• Nothing
• Nothing
• Light rail
• Bike lanes separated
• nothing at all -
• I like it.
• nothing
• separated modes, w transit in the center to keep the bikes and peds away from the tracks.
• Most aesthe5cally pleasing, other than not not much.
• Separate transit and automobile lanes
• None
• To-dos los modos de circulacion estan separados.
• EVERYTHING! I love that vehicle lane is separate from transit lane. • I like the idea of pedestrians and cyclists having the op5on of using either side of the bridge
• More organized and easy to understand
• nothing
• "I like that bike/ped is on elevated
• Like the really narrow car lanes! "
• Nothing
• n/a
• Nothing
• Every mode of transport has its dedicated lane
• Light rail has its own lanes.
• dedicated transit lanes
• The symmetry makes me smile!
• All traffic is separated.
• Nothing
151
• Op5on C is the best to prevent eminent domain from taking family’s homes. Because the light rail bend would have to happen in the undeveloped side of the new bridge • Nine
• This seems like the least desirable configura5on that places the most restric5ons on travel while providing the least benefit as compared to the other op5ons. • I don't like it. The bridge should be car-free.
• The best op5on
• The design looks great on paper. Also looks like it is more designed for Light Rail than pedestrian friendly crossing.
• this op5on seems fine but the other two seem beler
• None
• Separate bike and ped. seems safer for all.
• Green line!
• Separated mode of travel.
• Each direc5on have their own lane.
• I like the light rail in the middle with separate bike lanes. • bike and sidewalks on both sides
• Worst one yet.
• Pedestrian safety
• Will feel wider when trolley not on bridge
• Nothing.
• Full separa5on of modes; bike/ped paths on both sides may mean fewer crossings for bike/peds at ends of bridge.
• This is probably the best op5on, though I think you can keep this configura5on and add bidirec5onal bike paths on both sides to enhance access to the Jedediah Smith Trail. • Separated modes of travel, scalability
• I like that this includes pedestrian and bike travel. I am neutral about public transporta5on traffic, with a strong preference for train traffic over bus traffic. • sidewalk and bike lane on both sides.
• Transit doesn't have to share road with vehicle lane. • Op5ons to cross on both sides of street.
• Do not like this op5on.
• NO
• Seams to be the best op5ons.
• There's no confusion on where you're supposed to be.
• Dedicated lanes, would s5ll prefer protected bike lanes • I like that all modes have their own dedicated space, and that there are narrower lanes to control vehicle traffic.
• Separated lanes are safer
• Nothing
152
• Grade separa5on, modal separa5on
• Some
• separate modes/direc5ons of travel, as long as bikes stay on the correct side. • The separated light rail tracks.
• Nothing.
• Cost
• "All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• Reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will help to control vehicle speeds" • Separa5on of lanes
• Bikes flow same direc5on as traffic and ver5cally separated from autos. • Nothing
• na
• Seems safest for peds and bikes (contact), but higher bike speeds may actually be less safe overall.
• Completely separated modes/direc5ons of travel with transit in the center. Reduced vehicle speeds.
• It’s good to have the separa5on
• All modes are separated
• Separa5on between bikes and pedestrians
• plenty of space for trains and vehicles. all modes seperated. • As a driver, I would most like this configura5on.
• I like that bikes and pedestrians each have their own dedicated space. I like that transit can cross the bridge.
• Not much
• I like that there are all modes of transporta5on available on this op5on I like that there is both biking and pedestrian lanes on both sides
• Separated modes of travel
• Pros you list.
• Dedicated space for each mode of transporta5on
• Direc5onal travel
• My favorite of the three op5ons. Cyclists and pedestrians have a side for each direc5on.
Traffic and light rail have discrete lanes. Traffic lanes are well-separated. • no transit delays
• 2nd favorite op5on
• n/a
• The separa5on of each type of travel.
• Bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. Light Rail in middle, not in traffic lane. • Separate car vs Transit lanes.
• Bike lane is at a different grade than car traffic.
• lightrail not subject to traffic
153
• "Again...no real barriers to protect, no real reason for this bridge and where is the money coming from?
• "
• Separate vehicle and transit lanes
• Separated lanes are beler for direc5onal travelers.
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• Transit and vehicles are separated.
• Ped/bike Access on both sides of bridge
• most expensive
• None
• Light Rail has own lanes
• Not much.
• C is the best op5on
• sidewalk on both sides
• I like that the bike and walking are separated.
• Nothing.
• Nothing
• n/a
• Room for all
• Perfect op5on
• Bicycles have their own lane
• Like transit lanes in middle
• Best op5on. A bridge takes a long 5me. Build it once, build it right • Like the transit being separated from the vehicle lane • Separate car/transit lanes.
• Dedicated transit space means faster transit means more riders. • Modes separated
• The posi5ves of this op5on mirror the posi5ves of op5on B; however, this one also includes places for bikes and pedestrians to admire views on both sides of the bridge. • Ensures transit will be on 5me, increasing ridership. Slows traffic on bridge. • None
• Not much
• A more natural layout for bikes and peds.
• Not much
• Transit is priori5zed and not stuck in traffic.
• "Cars don't have to share a lane with light rail trains • "
• transit is separate from vehicle traffic
• Different lanes for vehicles and transit
• It’s all separate
154
• All separated modes on both sides of bridge.
• Poten5al shoulders for disabled vehicles
• Views for peds and bikes on both sides
• This is my favorite op5on so far. I feel that everyone gets what they want in this op5on, as space division is really nice and concise.
• I like transit has its own right of way.
• Nothign
• Beler
• bike/ped direc5onal separa5on
• Separated bike and sidewalk for both side of traffic
• I don't like anything about this!
• I like this molo, the best as it covers all the basics and Pedestrians can u5lize both sides of the bridge
• Separa5on of modes of transit. Makes for safer travel. • Looks prely perfect
• Nothing
• Separate lanes for cars and light rail; bikes and pedestrians • easy to navigate from driving perspec5ve
• I prefer Op5on A
• I like the separa5on of bikes and sidewalk but not a fan of the cars on each side of the light rail
• Don’t like op5on C
• Best control for pedestrians
• N/a
• S5ll bad idea traffic no real benefits can possibly be seen with this beidge • It's fine
• I don’t. Worst op5on
• This seems to be the op5mal choice.
• Too narrow, slow & conges5on.
• Seems like the op5on with the least poten5al for delays, especially if RT routes the trains down the center of Truxel.
• Modes of travel separated.
• Separate bike and walking lane
• Sidewalks on both sides of the bridge.
• n/a
• It seems fine
• My favorite op5on.
• It feels very safe and accommoda5ng for pedestrians.
• "Opposite flow bike lanes
• Separated vehicle/transit lanes "
155
• Every lane is separated
• N/A
• Not much.
• Dedicated transit lanes. Separa5on of bikes and peds. • Best for safety
• Each mode has dedicated lane.
• Separated lanes for each type of user.
• Ideal.
• No good
• Nothing.
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated.
• All modes are separated
• I like op5on C the best because it separates the bike lanes and sidewalks in a more tradi5onal style
• All modes and direc5ons of travel are separated
• I like C too.
• Every type of transporta5on has its own space.
• Nothing
• Nothing
• Transit doesn’t have to yield to vehicular traffic.
• The orienta5on of bike and ped access on the bridge. Allows for a smoother transi5on into and off the bridge for bikes and peds. I like that autos and transit are separate because if a vehicle brakes down, transit will be impacted. Also, having transit have its own lane will improve opera5ons and efficiency.
• Separated lanes for transit
• All lanes on each side of the road are traveling the same direc5on. Separated lanes for each travel mode. Slower vehicle speeds.
• "Separate lanes
• Width"
• It strikes the right balance between all the needs.
• All modes are separated.
• Dedicated transit lanes.
• Trains have separate lanes from cars.
• Destruc5on of environment
• Op5on C is the ideal op5on. It is the best for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. As long as the bike lanes are fully protected from vehicle traffic, this is the best op5on of those provided.
• I like the transit lane priority.
• Nothing
• Nothing. Its infascture bloat.
156
10b. What do you dislike about Op5on C?
• no physical barrier between peds/bikes and cars. Also, I would like this to be pedestrian/biking/mass transit bridge only. No personal vehicles • Wider footprint on the American River parkway
• Lack of physical protec5on for sidewalks and bike lanes is a non-starter • Remove private cars. They are not appropriate on this ac5ve and public transporta5on bridge.
• Costs. Puing bike and pedestrians on opposite sides of the bridge is a waste of space, especially if it limits trail access.
• Bikes and pedestrians are at risk. It’s the most expensive op5on with the worst bike facili5es proposed.
• Highest cost
• No physical barriers between bike/ped and automobiles. • please keep a barriers for bike and walkers from road too many bike riders are being hit by distracted drivers is most important to me as I am a bike rider • Do not want cars
• Paint is not infrastructure. Does not protect bikes or pedestrians. Why are there cars? Would be a lot safer without cars. This is a stroad across a park. • Cars don't need dedicated lanes.
• No protected bike lanes.
• Nobody gets what they need in this one. How do you ride a train sandwiched between car lanes like this? This design is not good.
• Incredibly wasteful use of space, worst op5on. S5ll no physical separa5on of bikes and cars, bike lane will be blocked by cars
• There needs to be a physical barrier to separate bike and peds. • Paint is not protec5on for bikes. Get real with mul5-mode… this is a car bridge design! • See above.
• I like A beler
• No automo5ve transit. Keep it safe and tourist friendly by allowing for a scenic gateway between North Sac and Downtown/Midtown. Allowing only biking and transit will make the bridge a des5na5on that would surpass even Tower Bridge. • no physical barriers between bikes / pedestrians and cars • My only concern is the men5oning of narrow lanes.
• cost; lack of physical barrier (now need two)
• The community in South Natomas does not want Truxel Road lightrail nightmares. A lightrail bridge can be built to run along the freeway on one side of the freeway near the train sta5on, and build a pedestrian/walker bridge on the other side of the freeway which would provide easier green commute.
• No, or limited, barrier between roads and path.
• most expensive
157
• no physical barriers between cars and cyclists/peds, one-way bike lanes unrealis5c, no emergency lanes
• Limits on bike lane access to trail and it should not include car travel lanes • Mixing cycling with motorists
• Expensive, lack of bike connec5vity, car access.
• Cars, do not need Vehicle lane they have 16th street and I5. We need public transporta5on and walk/bike lanes
• Bike lanes are not separate
• This op5on limits what bicyclists and pedestrians are supposed to do, which could cause issues when they are traveling, poten5ally causing them to go the wrong way. • Cars should not be included in this brisge
• There are cars
• No physical barriers,
• Expensive.
• Need some barrier between the vehicle land and the bike. Can't a barrier go in the stripped area?
• Physical barriers are needed to protect cyclists and pedestrians. • "No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • Limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail"
• widest, most expensive op5on, bike lane only space for emergency access, no barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles, would prefer a bridge without vehicles • Vehicle traffic. The bridge should be limited to the light rail cars, pedestrians and cyclist. • just remove the car lanes. It's fine. There are already three interstates within 2 miles with 22 lanes crossing the river. What's two more gonna do except create more car problems?
• Not needed
• no room really for emergency vehicles
• cost
• I don't like that it uses tradi5onal bike lanes instead of bike paths. This will likely make cyclists feel less safe and won't allow this bridge to be incorporated into exis5ng regional bike trails. I also don't like that this op5on assumes that the SacRT Green Line will be extended, as this might make the bridge project dependent on the en5re length of the light rail extension being approved and funded (which seems unlikely). • vehicle traffic
• Need ligh5ng
• Stop light rail going through S. Natomas Truxel Road. • too wide
• No physical separa5on for cycling lanes or public transit • No physical separa5on for cyclists or public transporta5on. Car should not be allowed on the new bridge
158
• Including vehicles will not encourage more sustainable modes of transporta5on as habitvehicles should not be included. • No physical separa5on for cyclists. Cars will drive in bike lane. No physical separa5on for public transporta5on. Cars will drive in that lane too. Cars should not be allowed on the bridge
• Only one lane for each vehicle.
• No shoulder for emergencies
• Too much space is dedicated to private vehicles. The bike lanes are a joke -- unsafe and unprotected. The lack of connec5on to the bike trail is even worse. • One direc5onal bike lane provides limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail, which is not great. But more importantly, that no physical barrier separates pedestrians and bikes from vehicles will absolutely kill people. Also that the bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns is a terrible idea. This plan is a disaster.
• Too expensive and too crappy for people not in cars
• Nothing
• If the bike lanes are at grade and only buffered from the road with paint, then vehicle speeds need to be limited to 25 mph or less per NACTO recommenda5ons. Also, if only one side of the bridge will have access to the Jedediah Smith Trail, you will encourage wrong-way cycling unless a crossing is created.
• Limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail.
• S5ll not safe for bikes and pedestrians. We need physical barriers between bikes and vehicles.
• "One direc5onal bike lane provides limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail • Most expensive
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • No physical barriers and highest cost
• Not enough vehicle lanes.
• Limited connec5vity to bike trail
• no physical barrier between peds/bikes and vehicles, excessive width • "Widest cross-sec5on/environmental impact of this broad footprint • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from • vehicles
• Connec5vity to bike trail
• "Price
• No physical barrier between cars pedestrians and cyclist." • Looks loud. Not paying alen5on to where they are going • Same as Op5on B, no shoulder or emergency lane.
• None
159
• "Would two auto lanes in each direc5on be possible?
• The safety for pedestrians and bikers.
• wasted space, traffic and light rail interfer with each other. • Cost. Widest cross-sec5on. Lack of physical barrier for pedestrians and bikes from traffic • Most environmentally destruc5ve of the alterna5ves. Drop the Truxel Bridge and instead focus on Alterna5ve 8 which has far fewer adverse environmental impacts. • It would not be the best for bicyclists with only one direc5onal bike lane. • Most expensive, widest open
• Slight concern regarding emergency vehicle access, but don't believe it's much different from exis5ng narrow overpasses.
• Most expensive, no physical barriers,
• Without seeing a plan view, I can't judge how limited the connec5vity to the Jedediah is. • this should include a physical barrier between bikes/pedestrians and cars. no vehicles should be allowed to enter bike/ped area.
• I s5ll prefer the bridge have no cars.
• Limited access to bike trail. Expense may cause delays to build. Emergency vehicles on bike trail sounds like accidents can happen.
• None
• Bicyclists already don’t follow laws. They will go in the opposite direc5on of the traffic regardless of the posted instruc5ons.
• No concerns.
• No barriers for bikers/pedestrians, most expensive
• "This makes it a non-starter: One direc5onal bike lane provides limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail
• Don't allow cars and that addresses the other cons listed." • Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• No light rail
• Transit lanes should act as extra buffers from vehicles for cyclists. • No physical barrier between cars and pedestrians/cars again • None
• I s5ll want a protected bike lane---even the lille posts like on 12th(? by Loaves and Fishes) would work. If we could at least put the posts, this would be the best choice. • Not needed
• The difficulty to connect the motorway to the Jedediah Smith Trail • Excessive cost
• No ER access except for using bike lane.
• The lack of barriers to pedestrians - I would not use this for walking, especially since it doesn't connect easily to trails. It's huge and costly for few benefits. • no physical barriers
• No barriors between modes
160
• No set emergency lane area and space for bikes will have to be used • One Way bike Lanes connec5ng to River trails are just wai5ng for arguments disasters and disrespect
• Significant impact to the environment, no barriers between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.
• Cost
• just make the bridge
• I don't like c for the dance reason I don't like being except it t makes it even worse • Too busy - and walkers and bicycles will s5ll ride on both sides. Seems wastefulz • Environmental impact and costs
• Based on the policy direc5on of the new General Plan, I can't believe there is an alterna5ve for a new bridge in the City that includes a bike lane exposed to high speed traffic with no barrier. If this bridge is truly supposed to be mul5-model, the peds and cyclists need protec5on or they won't use it. It just won't be safe for the average user.
Also, the limited connec5vity to J. Smith trail is problema5c. • Prefer op5on b
• No car free space.
• "Will there be transit access on or near bridge, like Tilicum? If so, having people cross vehicular traffic seems problema5c.
• Why not create something beau5ful and even a tourist alrac5on, by NOT having vehicular lanes? Let buses and RT green line coexist (like Tillium), thus also emergency vehicle access, but allow no private vehicles. I5 is so close by." • no barrier between bike lanes and traffic
• Cyclists and pedestrians are stuck next to cars instead of being on the opposite side of the train. The emissions from cars will create unsafe breathing condi5ons. Buses and emergency vehicles will s5ll get stuck in car traffic.
• "Widest cross-sec5on
• Most expensive"
• Probably the best op5on
• Cheaper would be to not have cars use it...
• 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.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. Most expensive op5on.
• No shoulder
• physical barriers lacking
• I prefer an op5on (not listed here) that does NOT include automobile traffic. The new bridge should only be for walking, bicycling and rapid transit (with emergency vehicle use).
161
• See my comments for op5on B.
• No one rides light rail - get rid of it.
• Lack of physical separa5on for bikes.
• "Would be interes5ng how the split off of the transit would work when it’s from the middle of the lane
• So if emergency vehicle comes from behind a bicyclist… where does the bicyclist go? Have to dive in between the cars on the main road? At least with B, can go on sidewalk " • It includes automobile traffic, which the bridge should not do. Please consider a plan which priori5zes ac5ve transporta5on and transit to the exclusion of car traffic. This is the worst possible op5on, short of excluding ac5ve transporta5on and transit en5rely. • Widen this design to beler accommodate emergency access and vehicle breakdowns.
Design so cyclists can avoid stopped vehicles without forcing bikes into auto lanes. • There should be barriers between vechicles & bicyclists. • "Lack of connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail
• Vehciles entering bike lane illegally without a physical barrier" • Proposed Shld appears to be only 2' so why can't curb be a conc barrier? • There is s5ll no physical separa5on between the different modes of travel on the bridge.
There is also s5ll a car lane present in the design.
• No protec5on for bike lane
• Lack of physical separa5on between bike lanes and vehicle lanes. • No shoulder, lack of emergency access
• no emergency lanes
• poten5al impediment/danger to cyclists due to vehicle breakdowns or emergency vehicle use of bike lanes, and lack of physical barrier • None
• too large, too expensive, too much space needed and not necessary • none.
• Costs and environmental impact
• No separa5on between bikes and vehicles.
• No barrier for pedestrians and limited access for emergency vehicles. • It will not be used enough to jus5fy cost
• expensive and lack of physical barrier between bikes and vehicles • Narrow lane and shoulder
• Most costs? Maybe combine bike lanes
• Cost
• The transit lanes in the middle would be overwhelming and feel chao5c • RT green line proposal would go right down main residen5al street bringing noise and the line would be within 50 feet of residences. No RT in residen5al neighborhoods! • No shoulder or emergency lane, so when there are accidents, traffic is backed up and will cause delays going around.