I've ridden this bike path a lot as I do long bike rides between SF and Oakland for fun. A lot of metric centuries. I hope they keep it. It's the only bike path that connects this part of the bay....
I've ridden this bike path a lot as I do long bike rides between SF and Oakland for fun. A lot of metric centuries.
I hope they keep it. It's the only bike path that connects this part of the bay.
But frankly I see it barely used. Whenever I ride it, I see very few cyclists on it. Frankly, it's a long bike ride between Richmond and San Rafael. No one is going to bike-commute to/from beyond those cities; few people bike-commute between them.
According to Google Maps, it takes 36 minutes to cross the bridge. Then you need to bike another 20+ minutes to get anywhere remotely interesting because the bridge landing areas are desolate. And that requires a great deal of fitness to deal with the climb. So, anyone commuting by bike for work is going to burn 2+ hours a day.
That means it's only really useful for recreational cyclists like me taking advantage of nice weekends to go for those long bike rides.
One thing to keep in mind is e-bikes. In my experience, they're ~1.5 times as fast as normal bikes, so that would bring it to ~40 minutes, which isn't bad for a commute. Besides, if the traffic is...
One thing to keep in mind is e-bikes. In my experience, they're ~1.5 times as fast as normal bikes, so that would bring it to ~40 minutes, which isn't bad for a commute. Besides, if the traffic is so terrible, biking might even be faster. Full disclosure: I am from the Netherlands, so closing a bike-line to open a crash lane seems ludicrous to me. It seems to me like the problem is the connection on one site, like the page MimicSquid links to suggests.
It's worse than that; the likely proposal will just make it back into a breakdown lane, so it's not even going to allow for more traffic throughput. Even the proposals that might involve a...
It's worse than that; the likely proposal will just make it back into a breakdown lane, so it's not even going to allow for more traffic throughput. Even the proposals that might involve a carpool/bus lane are in question because it's an older bridge and engineers aren't sure that it actually has weight capacity to carry that much additional weight safely.
One thing I'm wondering if whether use as a breakdown lane is entirely incompatible with cycling? It seems like it would be empty most of the time anyway. The rare stopped car would be an...
One thing I'm wondering if whether use as a breakdown lane is entirely incompatible with cycling? It seems like it would be empty most of the time anyway. The rare stopped car would be an obstacle, but perhaps still navigable?
At the moment there is a physical barrier between the car and bike lanes for the safety of the squishy cyclists. That's not really compatible with multi-purpose use for the lane, and the absence...
At the moment there is a physical barrier between the car and bike lanes for the safety of the squishy cyclists. That's not really compatible with multi-purpose use for the lane, and the absence of that barrier would definitely make it a riskier cycling route. The number of drivers that abuse breakdown lanes to skip ahead of traffic makes me concerned that trying to have it both ways would lead to someone running down a cyclist.
This isn't old news, but there's been updates since then. Bike East Bay, the local bicycle coalition, has a page aggregating the latest info, and will be organizing a group to attend the session...
This isn't old news, but there's been updates since then. Bike East Bay, the local bicycle coalition, has a page aggregating the latest info, and will be organizing a group to attend the session where the decision will be made, if you want to collaborate to make your dissatisfaction with this restriction of bike lanes known.
Who are these people who get put in positions of authority for transportation bureaus who've never heard of the concept of "induced demand"? My own state's DoT is the same way: whenever people get...
"This is an effort to strike a compromise between the interests of bicyclists and pedestrians, and the interests of the vastly greater number of people who travel through the corridor by car,” said John Goodwin, spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which operates the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges.
Who are these people who get put in positions of authority for transportation bureaus who've never heard of the concept of "induced demand"? My own state's DoT is the same way: whenever people get up in arms about the state of traffic, the only solution they can think of is to expand the roadways, which countless studies show only increases congestion.
I think, with no evidence other than anecdotes, that they're in denial. I suspect traffic engineers are inherently conservative and slow to change. There are certainly positive aspects.to this,...
I think, with no evidence other than anecdotes, that they're in denial. I suspect traffic engineers are inherently conservative and slow to change. There are certainly positive aspects.to this, but alsoany negatives, including this one.
I'd like to also point out "compromise between the interests of bicyclists and pedestrians, and the interests of the vastly greater number of people who travel through the corridor by car,” is deeply flawed, but haven't (yet) read the article for context. The flaw is that it's in the interest of car drivers to support alternative transportation for a variety of reasons including reduced congestion, pollution, etc. The quote sets of a false dichotomy, as is so common in all public speech these days.
I think people go overboard sometimes when they talk about induced demand. An increase in demand when you build something is usually considered a good thing, because that means it’s being used,...
I think people go overboard sometimes when they talk about induced demand. An increase in demand when you build something is usually considered a good thing, because that means it’s being used, successful, and popular. It means more economic activity.
This is generally considered to be better than building infrastructure that’s not used much. When the streets were deserted during the pandemic, not having to deal with traffic was nice, but it was spooky and a lot of businesses suffered. Some cities aren’t happy that their downtowns aren’t as crowded as they used to be due to people working from home. At a nationwide scale, another term for a lack of demand is “a recession.”
It’s a balance because we don’t like congestion either, but more cars going over that bridge isn’t automatically bad. If travel times were similar but more people traveled, that would count as a win.
This particular bike path seems not to be inducing very much demand from cyclists. So far, it seems to be a bust? It’s probably pretty nice for the very few cyclists who take that route, but it’s also a rather visible form of waste. Maybe a bus lane (and buses with a bike rack, naturally) would be a better use?
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is funded, in part, by tolls on the bridges. Higher ridership allows for lower tolls, which people like. Cyclists and pedestrians do not, currently, pay...
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is funded, in part, by tolls on the bridges. Higher ridership allows for lower tolls, which people like. Cyclists and pedestrians do not, currently, pay tolls. They may have a motivation to prioritize paying customers?
Regulators are contemplating dramatic constraints for a 4-mile bike path along the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, long a source of controversy between cyclists and motorists.
Soon, it may be open only Friday through Sunday.
“This is an effort to strike a compromise between the interests of bicyclists and pedestrians, and the interests of the vastly greater number of people who travel through the corridor by car,” said John Goodwin, spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which operates the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges.
...
When it opened in 2019 on the windswept upper deck of the span, the bike path delighted cyclists, many of whom had lobbied for years to get an east-west connection crossing the water. But motorists stewed, blaming the bike lane for rush hour traffic jams and complaining that few cyclists use it.
MTC’s automated counters record 80 bike trips on an average weekday, compared with 232 on Saturdays and Sundays. Some drivers felt tantalized, peering out their windows to see a line of concrete barriers — and beyond them, a 10-foot wide roadway that cars can’t access.
While Goodwin acknowledged the misery of drivers stuck in traffic, he said many of them misunderstand the impact of the bike lane. Some believed it took over a lane of traffic, when in fact it replaced a shoulder, previously reserved for cars to pull over if they crashed or ran out of gas. The loss of a breakdown lane has created gridlock on some days, since it’s more difficult to clear a stalled car or minor fender-bender. But the new bike path has not exacerbated congestion that beset the Richmond-San Rafael corridor long before its installation.
In reality, travel times have remained stable.
...
Nonetheless, transportation planners generally aim for efficiency, which means moving the highest number of people possible across the bridge each hour. Over the next nine months, staff at MTC will study several possible configurations of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, including one that would convert the shoulder to a space for carpools and buses.
I've ridden this bike path a lot as I do long bike rides between SF and Oakland for fun. A lot of metric centuries.
I hope they keep it. It's the only bike path that connects this part of the bay.
But frankly I see it barely used. Whenever I ride it, I see very few cyclists on it. Frankly, it's a long bike ride between Richmond and San Rafael. No one is going to bike-commute to/from beyond those cities; few people bike-commute between them.
According to Google Maps, it takes 36 minutes to cross the bridge. Then you need to bike another 20+ minutes to get anywhere remotely interesting because the bridge landing areas are desolate. And that requires a great deal of fitness to deal with the climb. So, anyone commuting by bike for work is going to burn 2+ hours a day.
That means it's only really useful for recreational cyclists like me taking advantage of nice weekends to go for those long bike rides.
One thing to keep in mind is e-bikes. In my experience, they're ~1.5 times as fast as normal bikes, so that would bring it to ~40 minutes, which isn't bad for a commute. Besides, if the traffic is so terrible, biking might even be faster. Full disclosure: I am from the Netherlands, so closing a bike-line to open a crash lane seems ludicrous to me. It seems to me like the problem is the connection on one site, like the page MimicSquid links to suggests.
It sounds like they're keeping it on the weekend?
Yeah that's exactly what we fucking need, let's destroy the few bike lanes we have for more space for cars...
It's worse than that; the likely proposal will just make it back into a breakdown lane, so it's not even going to allow for more traffic throughput. Even the proposals that might involve a carpool/bus lane are in question because it's an older bridge and engineers aren't sure that it actually has weight capacity to carry that much additional weight safely.
One thing I'm wondering if whether use as a breakdown lane is entirely incompatible with cycling? It seems like it would be empty most of the time anyway. The rare stopped car would be an obstacle, but perhaps still navigable?
At the moment there is a physical barrier between the car and bike lanes for the safety of the squishy cyclists. That's not really compatible with multi-purpose use for the lane, and the absence of that barrier would definitely make it a riskier cycling route. The number of drivers that abuse breakdown lanes to skip ahead of traffic makes me concerned that trying to have it both ways would lead to someone running down a cyclist.
This isn't old news, but there's been updates since then. Bike East Bay, the local bicycle coalition, has a page aggregating the latest info, and will be organizing a group to attend the session where the decision will be made, if you want to collaborate to make your dissatisfaction with this restriction of bike lanes known.
Who are these people who get put in positions of authority for transportation bureaus who've never heard of the concept of "induced demand"? My own state's DoT is the same way: whenever people get up in arms about the state of traffic, the only solution they can think of is to expand the roadways, which countless studies show only increases congestion.
I think, with no evidence other than anecdotes, that they're in denial. I suspect traffic engineers are inherently conservative and slow to change. There are certainly positive aspects.to this, but alsoany negatives, including this one.
I'd like to also point out "compromise between the interests of bicyclists and pedestrians, and the interests of the vastly greater number of people who travel through the corridor by car,” is deeply flawed, but haven't (yet) read the article for context. The flaw is that it's in the interest of car drivers to support alternative transportation for a variety of reasons including reduced congestion, pollution, etc. The quote sets of a false dichotomy, as is so common in all public speech these days.
I think people go overboard sometimes when they talk about induced demand. An increase in demand when you build something is usually considered a good thing, because that means it’s being used, successful, and popular. It means more economic activity.
This is generally considered to be better than building infrastructure that’s not used much. When the streets were deserted during the pandemic, not having to deal with traffic was nice, but it was spooky and a lot of businesses suffered. Some cities aren’t happy that their downtowns aren’t as crowded as they used to be due to people working from home. At a nationwide scale, another term for a lack of demand is “a recession.”
It’s a balance because we don’t like congestion either, but more cars going over that bridge isn’t automatically bad. If travel times were similar but more people traveled, that would count as a win.
This particular bike path seems not to be inducing very much demand from cyclists. So far, it seems to be a bust? It’s probably pretty nice for the very few cyclists who take that route, but it’s also a rather visible form of waste. Maybe a bus lane (and buses with a bike rack, naturally) would be a better use?
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is funded, in part, by tolls on the bridges. Higher ridership allows for lower tolls, which people like. Cyclists and pedestrians do not, currently, pay tolls. They may have a motivation to prioritize paying customers?
From the article:
...
...