The Ongoing Saga of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bike Lane

The fate of the 10-foot wide, barrier-separated bike and pedestrian path on the upper deck of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge remains uncertain, as both advocates and critics of the lane eagerly await a decision.

The Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC) has asked the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for approval to move the barriers over to the side of the bridge from Monday to Thursday, making the lane available in case of crashes or breakdowns. The barriers would be pushed back to where they have been for the last five years for Fridays, weekends and holidays.

Many people were expecting the BCDC to vote on the application at its November or December meetings, but Rylan Gervase, a BCDC spokesperson, said this week that the hearing date has yet to be determined and “most likely it will be early next year.”

In the meantime, other local government bodies have expressed support for reopening the third lane back to vehicles on heavier commute days, including the Marin and Contra Costa County boards of supervisors. Letters to Marin County’s board were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the bike lane open 24/7 as a crucial part of the San Francisco Bay Trail, and a petition advocating for the bike lane has gained nearly 3,100 signatures.

John Grubb, chief operating officer of the Bay Area Council — a coalition of major businesses that lobbied for creation of the BCDC and MTC and construction of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge — said the bike lane pilot was to see if bikers would use the lane for their commutes. “We would argue they haven’t,” he said.

The pilot started in November 2019, just months before pandemic-related shutdowns had fewer people commuting to work and moving around less in general. Five years later, people who want the third lane back open to vehicle traffic say there aren’t enough people using the bike lane to justify it being largely unused during the morning commute.

MTC numbers show that, on average, 140 cyclists per day make trips on the bridge on weekdays and 360 on weekends and holidays. A 2021 survey found that 85% of path users did so for exercise or recreation, while fewer than 5% were using it to commute to work. Nearly 32% said they used the path less than once a month.

On a recent weekday afternoon, a handful of people were seen using the bike path on the Richmond side. One of them was Bob Finkelstein, who had ridden over from Albany for one of his near-weekly recreational rides across the bridge to San Quentin and back. “This is a great place to ride,” he said.

Finkelstein said while he understands why some people would want to close the bike lane if it’s not being used more, he said reducing its availability isn’t a good idea.

“It sends the wrong message,” he said. “They have to leave it open as much as they can to provide alternatives to gas-powered vehicles.”

The bridge’s peak bicycle traffic day was Nov. 16 this year, when more than a thousand people biked to celebrate the five-year anniversary of when the lane was first opened to pedestrians and cyclists.

Dani Lanis, advocacy manager for Bike East Bay, said the bike lane is a justice issue, as people who live in places like Richmond and work in Marin County have fewer options to get across the bridge other than a car because the wait for public transit can sometimes be an hour.

“This is a matter of justice that disproportionately impacts low-income communities,” he said. “Closure of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge trail would cost individuals who currently rely on the trail to drive for more trips, and if they don’t have access to a car, they would be left with no other options.”

Grubb, however, said getting the third lane back open during heavy commute times is also a justice issue, as data shows that the majority of the thousands of drivers that travel westbound on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in the morning are people of color, making less than the Bay Area median income at blue-collar jobs. They’re the ones stuck when a crash or disabled vehicle grinds traffic to a halt while opening the third lane on the lower deck, he said, has alleviated such congestion on the evening commute.

“The Richmond side is saying, ‘What about us?’” Grubb said. “You know, ‘Where’s the justice for us? Why do we get stuck with this huge morning backup that’s getting much worse, but Marin doesn’t have to deal with these things anymore, and we, in fact, got stuck with the bike lane?’”

Mark Shotwell, CEO of the Ritter Center, which serves the homeless population in Marin County, wrote to county leaders in support of opening the third lane for emergencies because the vast majority of his employees commute to work, which can take up to two hours or more if there’s an accident on the bridge.

“This unpredictability of commute time leads to our employees needing to leave for work at least an hour earlier to give them a chance if an accident happens to still be on time to work,” Shotwell wrote.

But merely opening up another lane doesn’t mean traffic congestion will disappear.

A report by UC Berkeley’s California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology (PATH) released in May found that while the bike lane reduced the bridge’s capacity, average peak travel times to the end of the bridge all days of the week have remained about the same as before the bike lane was installed.

Overall, researchers found that the bike lane has added less than a minute to westbound travel time but has made peak weekday travel less predictable, mainly due to the barrier preventing disabled vehicles from pulling out of traffic.

Lanis said research has shown that when lanes are added to highways to ease congestion, the usual result is more traffic and increased congestion.

Another issue is where the traffic from the third lane would go on the west end of the bridge, as a 2020 study by the Transportation Authority of Marin estimated it could cost up to $90 million to reconfigure traffic to address the new bottleneck. However, one MTC report said that to address traffic congestion to U.S. 101 in both directions could cost as much as $310 million.

Instead, Lanis would prefer authorities look at serious investments in public transit, such as ferries and trains, as well as more affordable housing in Marin County.

“The controversy around the pathway is a red herring,” he said. “The only way you decrease congestion is by taking people out of cars.”