Supervisor John Gioia, a BCDC commissioner, not only made a bad vote on the Richmond-San Rafael bridge non-solution for congestion – but he bragged about it. From John Gioia’ Facebook page yesterday:
A Sensible Plan for Cars and Bikes to Share the San Rafael Bridge and Explore an HOV/Transit Lane
As a member of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission – BCDC, I made the motion to support BCDC’s 15 to 2 vote today to convert the full time dedicated
bike lane on the westbound upper deck into an emergency breakdown lane from Monday morning through Thursday afternoon, which is when there is the smallest number of westbound bikers/walkers on the bridge (40 to 100 per day depending on time of year) and when
westbound vehicle traffic is 38,000 car trips per day. This change will happen in October.
The breakdown lane will be open to emergency response vehicles and allow disabled vehicles to pull over without obstructing traffic thereby reducing morning traffic
congestion.
There will be a free shuttle every 20 minutes between 6 am and 8 pm when the bike path is closed.
From 2 pm on Thursday to 11 pm on Sunday, the shoulder will continue to be a dedicated separate path for cyclists and walkers when there are 120 to 300 path users
per day.
This shared use plan also allows Caltrans to test and study the feasibility of a part-time high occupancy vehicle lane for buses and carpools and a part-time bike
lane. I support a bus rapid transit in this lane.
This new plan requires the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission to allocate $10 million to support completion of both the Richmond Wellness Trail between Cutting Blvd. and the
Richmond Ferry, and a bike lane on Harbour Way from Downtown Richmond to I-580. These projects will improve public access between the Bay Trail, Downtown Richmond and the Bridge.
BCDC also voted to make permanent the daily use of the shoulder (3rd lane) on the eastbound lower deck as a vehicle travel lane during afternoon/evening peak commute
hours from 2 to 7 pm. This new lane has been successful in significantly reducing travel time in the afternoon.
The reasons for early morning congestion westbound on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are complex and complicated, and converting the bicycle-pedestrian lane to
a shoulder will have minimal effect on congestion, but it will deprive non-motorized users of the use of the bridge and make a mockery of
BCDC’s legislative mandate to provide, “maximum feasible access” to the Bay and its shoreline, as well as resolutions calling for 24/7 operation of the Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge Trail adopted by the cities of Richmond, Albany and Berkeley, plus the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission representing all five cites of western Contra Costa County. Closure of the multi-use regional trail also was opposed by a letter signed
by 80 local, regional, statewide and national organizations ranging from Rich City Rides and TRAC to Save The Bay, Sierra Club and Trust for Public Land, as well as a petition signed by over 5,000 individuals.
During four days/week, the trail will be converted back into a shoulder, not a through travel lane. There was no claim or pretense that this would do anything to reduce traffic
congestion, since the UC Berkeley group, After Study, concluded that converting the shoulder into the trail in 2019 had no effect on traffic congestion, incidents on the bridge or the time required to clear them.
The sole justification was to provide data for a Caltrans study on the environmental, structural and economic feasibility of converting the trail into a part-time, westbound
HOV lane on the bridge. As part of this study, Caltrans wants to assess how the bridge deck responds to moving the barrier between the trail and roadway, specifically if it results in cracking and/or spalling of the bridge deck pavement.
Instead of voting rationally, Gioia caved in to yet another special interest group for political reasons.
The early morning congestion is not the result of a closed lane, and solving it is not easy, cheap or quick. Opening a third lane would simply push the congestion from the
east end of the bridge to the west end. A similar thing is happening with westbound traffic in the afternoon commute. Even after the much lauded third lane opened to eastbound, traffic northbound on the Richmond Parkway in the afternoon commute is often at
a standstill.
The root cause of the congestion is economic disparities between Marin and the East Bay. Marinites have long opposed policies that would increase worker housing to accommodate
their low-income workforce that now lives in the East Bay. Instead of addressing this, the multi-use trail on the bridge is being blamed.
Over 50 years ago, in Planning graduate school at UCLA, I learned about induced demand, as it relates to freeways and commuting. Induced demand on freeways refers to the phenomenon
where increasing freeway capacity, such as adding lanes, initially reduces congestion but ultimately leads to an increase in traffic volume, often returning to or exceeding previous congestion levels. This happens because wider roads encourage more people
to drive, either by shifting from other modes of transportation or by making new trips that were previously avoided. The result is that the benefits of road widening are short-lived, and the problem of congestion persists. Adding lanes to the bridge will probably
make congestion worse ultimately.
This is not the first time Gioia has made a bad BCDC vote based on political expediency. When Oakland wanted to abandon the Port Priority designation for Howard Terminal in
an effort to keep the Oakland A’s in Oakland, Gioia joined with the BCDC majority in approving it. I am proud to say I was one of only two votes opposing it. The Port Priority designation is intended to preserve existing and potential port lands for future
port use to avoid future Bay fill. As we know, the BCDC vote made no difference; the A’s went to las Vegas (or at least to Sacramento).
Again, for political expediency, Gioia voted in 2009
at a Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor’s meeting in favor of a casino at Point Molate in exchange for a promise of $10 million a year (County
unanimous in support for casino – Richmond Confidential and https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2009/11/01/county-ready-to-back-point-molate-casino-plan/?fbclid=IwAR1wap_A3ysqKKg0bi5tuqMarUpY7JiaTtncQSCxIARCtZhPWMfHBLjLzd0&fs=e&s=cl).
Later, to suck up to the Richmond Progressive Alliance, Gioia flip-flopped and became an advocate for abandoning the proposed development at Point Molate. When
a rather insignificant matter came up involving Point Molate and BCDC, he made the following statement at the meeting of
(Minutes of BCDC meeting of July 17, 2021:
As some speakers mentioned, and I have also been in contact with several parties who have indicated that there are informal, settlement discussions occurring with regard to the litigation.
Now, the Applicant will say there are no official, settlement discussions and that is what Applicants say; but there have been some informal discussions.
Also as has been noted, this area has been identified in the East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan for a park. There has been interest recently expressed by Park District Directors
into looking at acquiring this site, but obviously they don’t want to interfere with Richmond’s contractual agreements that were approved last year or prior.
So, my concern would be if we move forward with initiating this process, that we may be jeopardizing the outcome or success of informal negotiations, informal, settlement discussions
that would lead to then official settlement discussions and the larger protection of this open space along the shoreline.
So while we could argue that well, a number of the issues that were raised today will get analyzed and discussed as part of considering whether the Bay Plan should be amended, that
the mere initiation of it may compromise the ability for there to be a settlement of all concerned, given where the Richmond City Council is today, given the discussions, and the sizable opposition that exists in the community.
Gioia was referring to the SPRAWLDEF lawsuits challenging Point Molate on the Brown Act and CEQA issues. There were no
settlement discussion going on and none planned. Gioia flat out lied to BCDC commissioners, giving them what seemed like a reasonable excuse to delay the study.
Richmond-San Rafael path change approved
A group of cyclists crosses the Richmond San Rafael Bridge as they leave San Rafael, Calif.
on Saturday, Nov. 16, 2024.(Alan Dep/Marin Independent Journal)
By Adrian
Rodriguez | arodriguez@marinij.com | Marin Independent Journal
UPDATED: August 7, 2025 at 6:49 PM PDT
A plan to reduce access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge bike path in order to study the potential addition of a commuter lane across the
span was begrudgingly approved Thursday.
After a session lasting about six hours, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission voted 15 to 2 with one abstention to
allow a modified pilot project to proceed for three years.
Staff had recommended several conditions of approval, and commissioners added a few of their own. They challenged the applicants, Caltrans
and the Bay Area Toll Authority, to return in nine months with preliminary benchmarks and a process for an environmental justice analysis.
“The data gathering that was done during the pilot to date was insufficient,” Zach Wasserman, the gubernatorial appointee and chair of the
commission, said ahead of the vote. “It had better be better as we go forward with this continuation of the pilot project.”
The commission also approved the permanent daily use of the shoulder on the lower deck and eastbound approach as a vehicle travel lane from
2 p.m. to 7 p.m. The change saves commuters an average of up to 17 minutes per trip during peak hours, according to the transportation agencies.
The barrier-protected, 10-foot, bidirectional path was introduced in 2019 as a four-year pilot project. Commissioners said that a study, which
was supposed to help officials determine what to do with the upper deck, left them with more questions than answers.
Santa Clara County appointee Yoriko Kishimoto and gubernatorial appointee Barry Nelson voted no, saying they didn’t agree with limiting public
access to the path. Amber Manfree, the Napa County alternate, chose to abstain because she serves on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, one of the project applicants.
Commissioners agreed that they struggled with pulling back public access to the path after having it in place for nearly five years. Many reflected
on the difficulty of the decision.
Commissioners complained that Caltrans, which owns the bridge, and the Bay Area Toll Authority, a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission that funds the operations and maintenance of the span through toll revenue, needed better public outreach.
Wasserman said the applicants need to step up before the three-year pilot is complete and present a proposal based on good data, including
lots of public input.
“This is studying things that are hard to study and hard to get a handle on,” Wasserman said. “But I don’t care if it’s hard, we damn well
better do it this time.”
With the approval, the project will limit path access to the period from 2 p.m. Thursday to 11 p.m. Sunday beginning as early as October. For
the remainder of the week, the moveable barrier would be pushed to the side, enabling the shoulder to be used as a vehicle breakdown and emergency lane during heavy commuting hours.
Lisa Klein, deputy executive director of MTC, said this specific schedule was proposed because it would mimic the schedule that would likely
be put in place for a commuter lane.
“We’re trying to see how the deck responds to the barrier moves, as well as the loading on the deck, as well as how the shuttle is used,” Klein
said.
Moving the barrier for maintenance costs about $500,000 annually. Moving it twice a week for the pilot project is expected to double that annual
expense, she said.
A free shuttle would operate from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on days the path is closed to transport pedestrians and cyclists. The path would also be
made available on certain holidays.
Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, a member of the commission, was absent, but called into the public hearing to voice her support
for the proposal.
“We are in a period of transition now, moving from single occupancy vehicles to walk, bike, transit and carpools,” Moulton-Peters said. “This
proposal balances the needs of all users, and we need to take action now to make sure we have a usable bridge for everyone. We’ll learn more in three years and we’ll make the future of the bridge much clearer after we have more data and information.”
Sausalito Mayor Joan Cox stood in as the alternate on the commission. Cox also supported the plan.
The revised plan was submitted to BCDC last month after more than a year of disagreement and delays over what do with the route.
One condition of approval is that the agencies recommend the use of $10 million in Regional Measure 3 bridge toll dollars for projects that
improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity from Richmond to the bridge.
Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll Authority cannot guarantee the funding yet, because Richmond needs to complete project planning and environmental
documentation first.
Another condition is that the agencies study the path’s impact on safety, bridge traffic and vulnerable communities.
After studying the modifications for three years, Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission would report to BCDC on the impact.
The transportation agencies would then propose a long-term plan for the upper deck for the commission’s consideration.
Business groups, workers, unions, employers, educators and driving commuters largely supported the change, saying traffic has been worse than
ever since the path was opened.
Members of bicycle and pedestrian coalitions want 24/7 access to the path to remain. Speakers said it’s not so much a cars-versus-bikes issue,
but a demonstration of the lack of affordable housing in Marin County.
“We understand the challenges faced by folks describing the bridge today,” said Warren Wells, director of policy and planning at the Marin
County Bicycle Coalition. “That said, I really want to stress that the traffic is not caused by the pathway, but by a failure of Marin to permit sufficient housing for the last century. We heard from employers who cannot hire and retain bay residents due the
admittedly bad traffic. The alternate pilot proposed today will not change that in most days.”
Diego Hernandez, a representative of Laborers Local 261, which represents workers in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties, said hundreds
of its members cross the bridge daily.
“The commute is crazy,” he said. “We encourage you guys to vote yes on today’s proposal.”
Joshua Arce, a representative of California Alliance for Jobs, which represents 100,000 construction workers in the state, including the Marin-based
Ghilotti Brothers Construction, said the proposal is a good move.
“This is really an opportunity to strike balance,” he said. “It’s fair, it’s reasonable. It’s very judicious and prudent. The status quo just
isn’t working for anyone.”
Originally Published: August 6, 2025 at 1:57 PM PDT
Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM delivered to your email address?
Click here to sign-up to receive the E-Forum. Tom Butt is the former mayor of Richmond, CA, having served 27+ years until January of 2023, eight of those as elected mayor. Tom Butt is an architect and founder of the 50-year
old Richmond architecture-engineering firm Interactive Resources. He serves on the board of two Richmond nonprofits,
Rosie the Riveter Trust and
East Brother Light Station, Inc. Visit the
Tom
Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt’s activities and a digest of past E-FORUMS going back to 2000,
http://www.tombutt.com. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by selecting “unsubscribe from
this list” at the bottom of this email. This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|