At least 200 cyclists rode across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Saturday to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the bike lane pilot program and to show their opposition to a proposal that would significantly reduce their access in 2025.
Since 2019, Bike East Bay and Rich City have held an annual awareness-raising community cyclist event from Richmond’s BART station, across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and into Marin County. This year’s ride included a more pressing goal: to demonstrate to transportation officials their desire to keep the bike and pedestrian lane permanently open.
Officials are advocating to close the lane Mondays through Thursdays, during heavy commuting hours, so it can be used for car breakdowns and other emergencies. If approved, cyclists and pedestrians will only be allowed to cross the bridge Fridays through Sundays. They’ve been able to cross the bridge daily since 2019 via a 10-foot-wide, two-way bike path on the north side of the upper platform. It is separated from vehicle lanes by a concrete barrier that can be moved for maintenance or emergencies.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the public agency overseeing the Bay Area’s state-owned toll bridges, said it submitted a proposal to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to modify the pilot. The BCDC is a state commission that was established to protect and improve public access to the Bay Area’s shorelines, and it has the authority to approve or deny the proposed changes. MTC officials say the changes are intended to improve safety on the bridge by reserving the bike lane for vehicle emergencies.
But many cyclists think this would eliminate critical access for people who don’t drive and need to use the bridge to cross the San Francisco Bay, saying that decision-makers should not prioritize cars over other modes of transportation during the climate crisis.
The Richmond City Council and San Francisco Bay Trail Project Board of Directors passed resolutions against reducing access, and 2,779 people, including more than 70 cycling organizations from across the country, including Save the Bay, have signed a petition urging the agency to reject the planned bike lane closure and keep it open at all hours, such as on other toll bridges in the Bay Area. The Trails for Richmond Action Committee estimates that 385,000 bicyclists and pedestrians have made trips across the bridge since the lane opened in November 2019, likely making it the most heavily used path of its kind on state-owned bridges.
Drivers in Marin County have often turned up at public meetings to support removing bicycle access. More than 80,000 vehicles cross the bridge on weekdays. By comparison, 115 cyclists on average use the path on weekdays, and 325 on the weekends, according to figures cited from transportation commission reports last November by the Marin Independent Journal.
At the cycling event Saturday, Bike East Bay’s advocacy director Robert Prinz told Richmondside that while congestion is due to many more cars than bikes using the bridge, removing the bike lane during the majority of high-traffic periods won’t fix the problem.
“Clearly there’s more people driving on the bridge than biking… but what we are saying is, the pathway is not the cause of the congestion,” Prinz said. “Largely through land use, we need more housing and more public transportation. We’re looking for solutions that don’t just kick the can down the road.”
Cyclists at Saturday’s event discuss potential loss of access
Other cyclists think the matter is more complicated.
Saturday was Larry Leong’s first time riding in the event and first time crossing the bridge to Marin County, and he said he was excited but nervous after being invited by a coworker. He said he’s worked on bicycles since childhood and rides regularly from his home in Dublin all around the East Bay.
“I wanted to see how many people show up,” Leong said. Gesturing at the crowd of cyclists around him, he said, “This way I won’t be blown away (by) wind.”
“”
“I understand the safety factor. They need the emergency parking, because where else are you going to be pulling out in emergencies?
— Bicyclist Larry Leong, on a proposal to limit bridge bicycle use to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays
Having formerly worked in Contra Costa County’s transportation division and now working in the flood control district, Leong said he understands the debate over the commuter lane differently. He said he thinks that cyclists need to understand the complexity of the issue for transportation managers concerned about safety during rush hour.
“I understand the safety factor,” Leong said. “They need the emergency parking, because where else are you going to be pulling out in emergencies? It’s Caltrans, so they must have a reason.”
But others say the bike lane is critical for people who commute to and from the East Bay, as high housing prices force many to live further away from their jobs.
Pleasant Hill residents Susan and Nick Lindsay were preparing to ride together Saturday morning, saying it would be their second time crossing the bridge. Married for more than five decades, they said that they have ridden all around the Bay Area and consider it one of the best places in the country to cycle daily.
Nick Lindsay said that solidarity is key among cyclists and pointed out how cycling has a positive social impact as people are more likely to interact face-to-face.
“Cyclists as a rule are very friendly people, because we’re not riding around in the cars. We’re vulnerable. You’re in the bubble (in a car), and you miss out on a lot,” he said. “And, it keeps you so doggone healthy. I feel like I’m 45, and I’m in my 70s because we ride all the time.”
They’re also concerned about transportation equity, Susan Lindsay said: “It gives people an opportunity to get back and forth to work. We go to the store (biking) all the time. We have one car, but we only use it for road trips out of the state.”
It’s not yet known when there will be a hearing and vote by the BCDC to determine the fate of the bridge’s bike lane. Given that there have been delays in the decision-making process, Prinz said he isn’t sure that the issue will be on the agenda of BCDC’s next meeting, which is Dec. 19. His group is supposed to receive a minimum 28-day notice ahead of such a hearing, which would be the end of this week, so he is expecting that a meeting in January is more likely.
BCDC’s legislative and external affairs director Rylan Gervase told Richmondside Monday that the date for the hearing on the Richmond-San Rafael bridge bike lane study hasn’t been confirmed yet, “but will likely be early next year, not in December.”
Prinze added that he was happy to see the bike event drawing hundreds, if not thousands, each year.
“We’re grassroots organizers and so much of what we do is person-to-person,” he said. “This is a good example of getting people together off their screens. Especially with the most recent election, people are looking for more connections and positivity.
Organizers said it’s all about solidarity, showing support for equitable transportation options to keep paths open for cyclists and other people without cars. Bike East Bay said in a press release that more than 1.4 million residents live in Marin and Contra Costa Counties, and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge serves as one of the only connection points between them.
“Maintaining access for all modes of travel is essential — especially for those without access to a car. This is a matter of equity that disproportionately impacts low-income communities,” Bike East Bay said.
To view upcoming BCDC public meetings dates and agendas, you can visit the state’s website. BCDC has not yet posted agendas for either its Dec. 5 or Dec. 19 meetings.
If people maintained their cars, made sure they had gas, and drove carefully (no speeding, tailgating, distractions), then the only time there would be a need for an emergency lane is if there was a flat tire. And even those are preventable with specific tires. Pretty much all the problems with breakdowns are self-inflicted. They are not “accidents”.
Some data from Caltrans or MTC might help guide the debate. What is the frequency of incidents requiring an emergency lane? How do these data differ weekday to weekend (i.e., why is weekday bike lane closure needed but weekend closure isn’t, if the goal is motorist safety)? What is MTC/Caltrans’ goal with the proposed change to the roadway: motorist safety or maximum vehicular throughput (it shouldn’t be congestion relief, given the two-lane configuration east of the toll plaza; the bridge isn’t contributing any more to congestion than adjacent segments of 580; that can be attributed firmly at regional, and especially Marin, jobs/housing/transportation imbalances)? If the former, despite the need to slow for a stopped motor vehicle, is safety compromised by lack of an emergency lane? Perhaps there’s undue hazard for a driver needing to exit the car? Lastly, what lane dimension is needed for an emergency lane, and what dimension for an effective bike lane? Based on crude Google maps measurements, it looks like all three existing lanes are approximately 11′. Could an effective compromise allow widening of the lane adjacent to the protected bike lane at the expense of two or three feet of that bike lane? Given current cycling usage, narrowing isn’t likely to impact cyclist safety (it may still be within Caltrans’ minimum two-way cycle track dimension), while adding a small shoulder to the motor vehicle travel lane could ease passing a disabled vehicle. Traffic would slow, but isn’t that in itself safer?
starting a ferry service from Richmond to Larkspur would help alleviate some of the automobile congestion subsequently making space necessary for emergency stops.
Wow! 200 bikers showed up for the event. That’s really an impressive number!