The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge pathway recently opened to incredible fanfare, as thousands of people of all ages and abilities — from children, to the elderly, to the mobility-impaired — came out to cross the bridge by foot and bike for the first time in its 69-year history.
Many were pleasantly surprised to find it to be a relatively quick, easy ride that takes around 20 minutes, or somewhere between 45-60 if travelling between downtown San Rafael and downtown Richmond. And the views are absolutely stunning.
While we would much rather share the excitement we have heard and witnessed since the pathway opened, it has become impossible to ignore questions posed in the Independent Journal about the pathway’s utility and cost, especially with so much key information missing from the conversation.
If the bridge were built today, we are confident it would offer dedicated space for people on foot and bike, in cars and on transit. Building it without accommodations for all types of travel was incredibly shortsighted and has contributed to the congestion people experience today.
Unfortunately, the project has been framed as a zero-sum game between bicycle/pedestrian and vehicle access. So, to start with the most pressing question: why should the upper (westbound) deck shoulder provide access for people on foot and bike, rather than those driving? And at what cost?
Readers won’t be surprised to hear us say that it’s another step toward improving health and air quality, completing the 500-mile Bay Trail, and providing an alternative to driving.
But for those who remain unconvinced, what we have to say next may surprise you: Opening a third lane to cars almost certainly won’t fix traffic.
In 2007, Caltrans looked at the impacts of opening a third lane to vehicles on both decks. They found that adding a third lane to the lower (eastbound) deck during the evening commute would increase throughput — or the number of vehicles that can cross the bridge in an hour — by 22%.
But on the upper deck, it would be a very different story: throughput would be improved by less than 2% during the morning commute. That’s because the primary source of westbound congestion is the toll plaza.
Perhaps most importantly, even if a third lane were added to the bridge, a bottleneck would ultimately result on the Marin side, where Highway 580 narrows to two lanes. To widen 580 to three lanes would be a massive undertaking — and then comes the question about what would happen when traffic spills onto Highway 101.
All of these considerations — as well as a question around whether the bridge can actually handle the weight of a third vehicle lane — are currently under review, with studies to be published sometime in 2020. Until then, arguments to remove or limit the pathway in order to relieve congestion are purely speculative.
To the drivers fed up with traffic, our goal is not to make your lives worse — quite the contrary, actually. We know that not everyone can or will ride a bicycle, and that bicycles alone are not the solution to traffic, or even our climate crisis. But our mission is to remove the barriers for those who are interested and willing to ride. If we’re successful, everyone will benefit, drivers included.
Lastly, this debate should not end with the “third lane.” Take a moment to consider why congestion has increased so dramatically over the bridge in recent years: a growing number of people who work in the North Bay cannot afford to live here, and don’t have access to reliable, convenient regional transit.
Bjorn Griepenburg is policy and planning director for the Marin County Bicycle Coalition
