A highly anticipated vote to determine the future of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge bike lane has been postponed while state transit officials seek solutions to what has been a hot-button issue for drivers and cyclists.
The vote on whether to limit bike lane access to weekends only was scheduled for Thursday’s Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) meeting. (The commissioners held a Jan. 16 workshop about the issue.) But on Friday the item was removed from the meeting agenda at the request of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which operates the Bay Area Toll Authority, and the state Department of Transportation.
John Goodwin, communications director for the MTC, which oversees transportation planning and financing for the Bay Area, confirmed the MTC wanted the BCDC to wait on voting, hoping it would give the MTC time “to answer questions and satisfy concerns raised by BCDC” since the January workshop.
“We are hopeful a few more weeks of work will increase the chances of reaching a win-win-win for westbound auto commuters, Friday-Saturday-Sunday bicyclists and pedestrians, and Bay Trail users in both Contra Costa and Marin counties,” Goodwin told Richmondside via email.
Last year, the MTC asked the BCDC to modify the five-year bike lane pilot and reserve the lane for vehicle emergencies Mondays through Thursdays and for cyclists and pedestrians Fridays through Sundays. The amended permit reducing bike lane access would provide the agencies with a “two-year period to collect additional information about (emergency) response times and delays related to incidents on the bridge.”
The Caltrans proposal to close the path four days a week was opposed by resolutions of the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission — which represents all five cities of western Contra Costa County — and by resolutions of the Richmond, Albany and Berkeley city councils.
Bruce Beyaert, chair of the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC), told Richmondside Friday that he believed the bike path was a successful pilot that provided both cyclists and pedestrians access to the bay’s shoreline and a crucial connection for the Bay Trail — a planned 500-mile trail running through all nine Bay Area counties, 47 cities and across seven toll bridges. Currently, the trail spans 350 miles.
“It provides both cyclists and pedestrians visual access to the bay from the bridge and allows people in the North Bay to ride and walk to enjoy the 36 miles of Bay Trail in Richmond,” Bayaert said. “It also allows the people in the East Bay to enjoy their sections of the Bay Trail and shoreline parks.”
According to a May 2024 report by UC Berkeley’s California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology (PATH), the bike lane’s impact on bridge traffic has been minimal, with westbound drivers experiencing less than one minute of additional travel time despite reduced vehicle capacity.
However, weekday peak travel times became less predictable as the barrier prevents disabled vehicles from being moved out of the way of traffic. A Nov. 5, 2024 MTC report to the Marin County Board of Supervisors revealed distinct cycling patterns, with the path averaging only 140 daily trips on weekdays compared to 360 on weekends and holidays. The vast majority of riders (85%) use the path for recreation and exercise, while just 15% use it for commuting purposes.
Francois Dion, one of the UC Berkeley researchers who studied the bridge in cooperation with Caltrans, told BCDC commissioners that a more detailed look at the data shows more individuals using the path come from the Richmond side in the mornings, returning in the early afternoons.
Lane merge after toll plaza said to be source of bridge traffic delays
Dion also mentioned in the Jan. 16 presentation that one of the main causes of congestion is the approach to the toll plaza.
“The primary cause of congestion leading to the bridge is not the toll plaza itself but the fact that we go from three lanes on approach to two lanes on the bridge,” he said. “However, the fact that we are expanding the number of lanes at the toll plaza and then shrinking them adds more friction. The pilot has also reduced the merging area (of approach), which used to be 850 feet but is now 325 feet.”
According to the discussion summary notes from the Jan. 16 BCDC workshop, where 15 commissioners broke out into small groups to discuss the bridge, some commissioners believe that the pilot has demonstrated that the current 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week path is feasible and that the question of reduction should focus on whether the lane presents “significant use conflicts.”
Bayaert agreed that the state’s proposal to close the trail four days a week doesn’t “make sense” when looking at the need for an emergency lane, given the number of incidents.
“On average over the course of an entire year there have only been 40 incidents on the bridge during the weekday morning commute,” Bayaert said. “Closing the trail four days out of seven when there is less than one incident per week doesn’t make any sense.”
Dion said that because the California Highway Patrol only tracks the number of collisions, there isn’t enough data on the impact of inoperable vehicles waiting for help.
“One thing we know for sure is the lack of a shoulder may, during periods of congestion, affect response, the question is by how much, which is difficult to quantify,” Dion said during the workshop.
Additionally, one group of commissioners noted that the communities in Richmond closest to the bridge were more likely to be communities of color and/or bearing environmental justice burdens and questioned whether traffic leading up to the bridge could be moved “away from neighborhoods to another location where fewer people live.”
I am hopeful that a solution will be found that will allow for both car and bike/pedestrian traffic. The bridge is used by all modes of transportation for various means (work commute, recreational travel etc). Especially with the increase in e-bike users throughout the bay, it would be a pity to regress when so much mobility progress has been made.
That bike lane has to go. Crossing the bridge without a breakdown lane creates a very dangerous situation which has resulted in several accidents, it’s just a matter of time before people are killed in one of the incidents.
The backup caused by this bike lane occurs on a daily basis. The third lane needs to be used as the one on the lower deck is, open to traffic during commute times. This would get rid of the huge morning traffic back-ups. Every other day there is a car or truck that runs out of gas, gets a flat, or is disabled in one way or another so it becomes a one lane bridge
The statement about 40 incidents a year is false. It more like 40 a month. Ask anyone who actually uses it.
I am a resident of Richmond. I cross the bridge westbound 1-2 weekdays/ week between 7:30 and 9:30 AM. I have never been delayed. The cars I see do not suggest that the people crossing are generally less affluent than average for the bay area. This bridge issue seems to me to be a distraction from things we should be addressing, including holding Chevron more accountable to reduce pollutants. Or things that might make mass transit or zero emissions more user-friendly.
Get the bike lane off the bridge.
The Bridge was proposed, designed, and accepted by the state from 1949 to 1953. At that time there were 11 million people in California. We now have 39.4 million. The problem is not a smallish lane or bicycles.
The congestions effects are made worse as one is in painfully slow bumper-to-bumper traffic staring at “unused space.” It gives the false impression that that space is the answer.
Keep in mind that in 1958 the Key System stopped its rail service to SF and the rails were removed from the lower deck of the Bridge, increasing its’ capacity.
Amendments were made to access to 101 in the early 2000s to unblock the snarl there from the bridge and Sir Francis Drake was also amended to improve traffic flow. Now, there’s nowhere to go for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
Reworking the approach to the toll plaza is just finessing. Mass transit/fewer cars is the answer but that is problematic; Richmond-San Rafael doesn’t have the central destination that the Trans Bay provided to serve the job-rich financial District that SF Bay Bridge and the GG Bridge could exploit.
Removing the Bike/Pedestrian lane as a solution is just wishful thinking.