What we have here in the Bay Area is an interesting bridge access problem. It concerns the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, connecting the East Bay (City of Richmond) with Marin County (City of San Rafael). The 5.5-mile long double-decker bridge has three 12-foot lanes in each direction, only two lanes of which are used as motor vehicle lanes. The right (curb) lane has diagonal stripes and is basically unused except for maintenance vehicles.
My group-REBAC (Regional Bicycle Advisory Committee)-has lobbied Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) on at least three occasions in the past eight years to open the unused lanes for bicycles, but to no avail. The climate for bicycles seems to be changing for the better, however, what with BART's new bicycle-friendly policy changes, etc.
We have written Caltrans a letter recently, formally requesting access and they have responded with nine objections, ranging from inadequate railing height, dangers of expansion joints to needing the use of the shoulder lane for maintenance. At the moment our strategy is as follows:
1. Meet with Caltrans to present our responses to their nine objections and request opening the shoulder lane. A possible solution may be to paint stripes to delineate a 6-foot wide one-way bike lane next to the bridge railing and put a 6-foot wide diagonally-striped buffer area between the bike and the traffic lane.
2. If Caltrans refuses to open the lane we may consider filing a law suit, based on several premises (to be further researched by a competent attorney).
A. Interrruption of bike access
--there was ferry service before the bridge was built in 1957
--Caltrans ran a bike van with trailer for 10 bikes across the bridge on weekends for about 2 years in the late 70's
--In the last 15 or so years Caltrans provided tow truck shuttle service for the occasional bike rider (but not including commuters). This service was discontinued in June 1996.
B. The 1994 Clean Air Plan by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District--a State Document--promotes the expansion of bicycle facilities. One policy (successfully lobbied by REBAC) states:
"Provide means for bicycles to cross all existing Bay bridges; encourage Caltrans to provide direct access for bicycles on the Benicia-Martinez and Richmond San Rafael bridges; provide direct access on any new or modified bridge construction."
--The R-SR Bridge will undergo retrofitting in the near future, which
possibly may provide an opportunity to force the above stated policy, i.e.
"provide direct access on any new or modified bridge
Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 281 Park Ave. South, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10010 tel. (212) 777-8181 fax (212) 777-8157 email tstc@igc.apc.org web site: http://www.tstc.org/tstc/
1. Winning bicycle access to any presently-restricted area or piece of roadway infrastructure requires concerted pressure -- it's not surprising that "lobbying" a dinosaur agency like Caltrans three times in 8 years has not produced any change on the S.R. bridge. This sounds like a good issue for the various S.F., East Bay and regional cycling groups to come together in a vigorous advocacy campaign. Try also to enlist riding groups (cycling clubs) who may indeed have as much or more at stake in this than commuters.
2. Allies for the advocacy campaign should include state legislators, preferably in the areas on either side of the bridge, and on the committees that Caltrans has to listen to. Local officials are also important to recruit and get on record on your side. Some businesses, like cafes, etc. in Richmond and San Rafael may also have a stake in having a lot of weekend cyclists come through. Several towns in the lower Hudson Valley have evolved into NYC cyclist destinations and some of the businesses there do very well by it.
3. Re: Caltrans' specific objections, cite other long bridges that have bike access (I believe Danish and Swedish groups were fighting a few years back for access to a new bridge system spanning the sea between Copenhagen and mainland Sweden). Building the railing height up with inexpensive fencing is not that difficult along the outer edge of the bridge (the Beacon-Newburgh I-84 bridge over the Hudson had chain-link attached to a low railing for many years). Challenge the agency for empirical evidence that the railing is too low for safe bicycle crossing.
4. The lane will be more comfortable for cyclists, and allow two-abreast riding, if you push for an 8-foot riding lane and a 4-foot buffer zone.
5. There are a number of points to consider concerning a lawsuit. In New York City, Transportation Alternatives (T.A.) has just sued the NYC Dept. of Transportation over suspension of evening rush-hour bicycle and foot access over the Queensboro (59th Street) Bridge. It's significant that the lawsuit is not based so much on the merits of devoting infrastructure to cycling and walking, but rather to the fact that the city made the change without holding the public hearing after 30-day notice, as required by the City Charter (this is also the legal hook that T.A. used to have the 1987 Midtown Manhattan bike ban thrown out -- the restraining order was temporary, pending a public hearing, but it embarrassed the Mayor and kept the issue in the public eye to the extent that the ban was withdrawn).
T.A. has researched bridge access issues fairly thoroughly. While there is a provision in federal law about maintenance of access during federally-funded projects, NYC has tended to comply with the letter of that law by providing shuttle van services of varying quality for bicyclists where actual riding access is interrupted. In the San Rafael bridge case, it may be that interruption of the various shuttle services Alex mentions might be able to be argued, though not under the federal statute I mentioned, since reconstruction does not appear to be an issue (unless you can construe the state's claim that it needs the shoulder lane for occasional bridge work as construction interrupting access). Some bridges or other big facilities like dams were built under the authorization of a charter issued by a state -- maybe there's a charter that says who and what the bridge is supposed to serve.
The lack of a central source of good legal research on bridge and other access issues is in my view a major failing of the national cycling advocacy groups. They've never been of any help to NYC advocacy groups in the various problems we've encountered and the legal questions we've raised about them over the years. The mountain bike groups have done it for off-road access. What about Bike Fed, LAB, etc. and our basic right to the road (especially where that road crosses water) ?
You must recognize that once you go to court, talk stops between you and the agency you sue. It's also the case that a judge will look to see whether you've exhausted "administrative remedies" before resorting to the courts. So far, it looks like Alex and Co. haven't done that yet, and in any case,a lawsuit is only one of several tools you will need to deploy toattain your goals. Don't rely on it as a substitute for an overall political strategy. Pressure, pressure and more pressure (often exerted via the allies you're able to recruit), and an inability to take "no" for an answer, are the keys to successful bicycle advocacy in my book.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager, Oregon DOT, Rm. 210 Transportation Bldg., Salem OR 97310 (503) 986-3555 Fax: (503) 986-3896 email: michael.p.ronkin@state.or.us
Your supportive arguments are sound, so I won't add to them. I don't have a set of plans, but if it's typical of many freeway-style bridges, one suggestion I've often made is:
Allow bikes on the bridge from the last entrance ramp to the first exit.
This will mean there are no conflicts, as slower bikes are always to the right of faster motorists, and there are no crossing conflicts. Most ramps are wide enough to accommodate both modes side by side. Of course the street system at each end has to provide good access to and from destinations. I see no need to do special striping, though I don't see how it could hurt.
To quote Peter Lagerway, bridges are the greatest issue (because often the greatest obstacle).
Editor, Bicycle Forum, PO Box 8311, Missoula MT 59807 (406) 543-8113 FAX (406) 543-8146 or john@montana.com
Re: bridges: One thing that comes to mind was a Wilbur Smith & Assoc. report on a bridge situation back East. I believe it was done for the New Jersey DOT in the early 80s and they looked at the potential for opening up a long narrow bridge for bicyclists. One conclusion was that the minimal delays that the bicyclists would cause motorists were far less significant than the major delays bicyclists suffered by riding the long way around (some 20 or 30 miles extra). I believe there may have been some safety discussions there as well. Of course, the East Coast lives with much narrower bridges than Caltrans is likely to understand.