Quote:
Originally Posted by regboi30
Cars on the proposed bridge are a controversial question.
Isaac Gonzalez is a Sacramento Active Transportation Commissioner and founder of Slow Down Sacramento. He is pushing for less reliance on vehicle traffic. The proposed bridge currently would serve vehicles, along with bicycles and pedestrians.
"I currently could not support any bridge concept for Truxel that had vehicular traffic over it," Gonzalez said. "We need an opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely without pollution around them."
A divide has been created between transportation advocates.
"We're just trying to plan for that future," Strecker said.
"I think it would only increase traffic congestion," Garcia said.
|
Oh FFS, those two Unicycle dimwits quoted need to get real. The more connections across the river, the better, and vehicles are a must too, yes, buses are vehicles. As are commercial vehicles, needed for commerce. Not building a six lane vehicle bridge to accommodate those needs just because private cars might use it is "Cutting off Sacramento's nose to spite its face...."
Once again:
Q: What are freeways really for?
A: thru traffic.
Something is dreadfully wrong with a city when to get to the immediately adjacent neighborhood, you have to get on a freeway.
I would not only have the Truxel Vehicle bridge, I would look into a revived vehicle bridge for Natomas on the other side of I-5, once called the Jibboom Street Bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jibboom_Street_Bridge
Anything to give Natomas - Downtown traffic better alternatives than I-5, which, again, should be focused upon thru traffic.