CalBike’s Legislative Watch chart lists three bills we’re sponsoring this year, eight bills we’re supporting, and 15 bills we’re watching. Our position is oppose on only one bill: AB 612, the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill. We watch a lot of bills but generally oppose very few. Here’s a breakdown of the difference and why we do it this way.
What does it mean when CalBike is watching a bill?
Our legislation watch includes all the legislation that touches on our mission to bring joyful, safe biking and walking to all Californians. Bills land on our watchlist for one of three reasons:
The bill language hasn’t been fully fleshed out, and we’re waiting for more information to find out whether we support it or not.
We are neutral on a bill. We don’t think it will advance our mission, but it probably won’t harm it either.
We don’t support the measure, but it doesn’t rise to the level where we would oppose it.
We keep an eye on the progress of watchlist bills as they move through the legislative process, but we don’t attend hearings to testify or send letters in support or opposition. Over time, some of those bills may move to our Active Transportation Slate — our support list. On rare occasions, we might decide to oppose a watchlist bill.
Why doesn’t CalBike oppose many bills?
When we take a position opposing a bill, that means we’re actively working to defeat or amend it because we think the bill, as written, will do harm. In the example of the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill, we’re concerned because of the history of fire departments opposing new infrastructure that will increase safety for bike riders. Our allied bicycle coalitions feel strongly about this issue, and we believe standing up against it will lead to a better outcome.
Even so, opposition is a tricky matter. The author of AB 612, Assemblymember Chris Rogers, is a champion for active transportation in his district. We work to maintain positive relationships with many legislators, not just the core group of reliable bike champions. A look at this year’s legislative watch (or that of any past year) shows a range of authors of excellent bills. California legislators bring a diversity of perspectives that enrich our legislative agenda; we want to keep as many doors open as possible.
Opposing a bill might mean working to defeat it, but more often, it involves working with the author’s office and with various committees that will vote on it to suggest revisions. In the case of the fire department bill, we hope to incorporate concerns from the bike and safe streets community, along with fire prevention. We believe street safety and fire safety aren’t incompatible, and while we might not support this bill in the end, moving our position from oppose to watch would be a victory.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CalBike-Insider-Image4.png7201280Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-03-27 17:25:472025-04-04 08:08:53CalBike Insider: What Does It Mean When CalBike Opposes a Bill?
We all remember where we were in March 2020: hunkered down at home or going out to essential jobs — wondering what would happen next and how to keep ourselves and the people we cared about safe. One silver lining: a bicycling boom thanks to quiet streets mostly free from traffic. The pandemic accelerated the Slow Streets movement and showed many more people what traffic-calmed neighborhoods could feel like.
During those early months, CalBike sprang into action. And many of our COVID campaigns have fed into our ongoing advocacy. Here’s what we’re reflecting on five years later.
Bike shops are essential businesses
With gyms closed and the need for outdoor exercise, many more people started biking. To keep their bikes moving, they needed bike shops for parts and repairs. Yet, in the early days, when only essential businesses were allowed to stay open, bike shops were closed.
We continue to support local bike shops, championing their inclusion in the Electric Bicycle Incentive Project. And we’ve advocated for the California Air Resources Board to incorporate community bike shops, which offer classes, DIY repairs, and low-cost options to help people keep their bikes in good running order, into the program.
Bike exchange
Another challenge of the early days of the pandemic was to provide bikes for people who couldn’t afford to buy one. Bike Match stepped up to meet this challenge, connecting people with bikes they no longer used to people who wanted a bike. In some cases, volunteers repaired neglected bikes, sending them to their new owners in good working order. It was one of the many examples of kindness during that fraught time, and CalBike helped get the word out.
While many Bike Match programs have wound down, community bike shops, bicycle kitchens, and many community groups continue to match donated bikes with people who need them.
A template for creating Slow Streets
Many California communities created temporary Slow Streets during the pandemic. A Slow Street is limited to local traffic, making the street a safe place to play, walk, or ride a bike. CalBike spoke to local advocates from Oakland about that city’s Slow Streets program, using it as a model for others who wanted their community to follow suit.
The Slow Streets movement has only gained momentum in the last five years. While some pandemic Slow Streets have been removed, others have been made permanent, and local advocates have been working toward Slow Streets networks. CalBike has sponsored and supported bills to bring down vehicle speeds and introduce slow zones, including slow school zones bills and AB 43, which allows communities more latitude to reduce speed limits.
Quick-build to bring much-needed infrastructure online
CalBike’s support for quick-build began before 2020, but the pandemic was a moment when we needed much more safe infrastructure on an accelerated time schedule. It was also a time when we proved we could make big changes very fast, so it was a great moment to highlight quick-build. We partnered with Alta Planning + Design to create a quick-build guide. Our Quick-Build Bikeway Design Guide remains a vital resource today.
CalBike continues to advocate for quick-build, and many municipalities have adopted these methods to quickly deal with dangerous streets and intersections. This year, we’re sponsoring the Caltrans Quick-Build Pilot Bill, AB 891, which would create a pilot to test quick-build techniques on state-controlled roadways.
The pandemic showed we could work together, make sacrifices, and support each other in ways we couldn’t have imagined. It also reconnected many people with the simple pleasure of spending time outdoors, of riding a bike around their neighborhood or around the county. We hope we never go through something like that again, but five years on, we can see some positive things that came out of a dark time.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FullSizeRender-e1609031822961.jpeg8551073CalBike Staffhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngCalBike Staff2025-03-20 12:48:352025-03-20 12:54:26Looking Back Five Years: Biking During COVID
Response time and access for emergency responders are critical for safety. But, all too often, fire departments see the elements of street design that make our shared spaces safer for people biking and walking as barriers to fast response. Speed humps, protected bikeways, narrower lanes, and protected intersections that slow vehicle turning movements are among the features sometimes opposed by firefighters, without evidence that these features measurably slow response times. So CalBike, along with Streets for All and many local street safety advocates, opposes the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill, AB 612.
Firefighters are not traffic engineers
Fire codes requiring a street width of 20 to 26 feet have been used to oppose bike lanes that would narrow the vehicular space less than those widths, though often, the roadway space usable by fire vehicles would remain the same. With wildfires now more commonly encroaching on dense neighborhoods, this concern is heightened.
While access to a fire is crucial, it’s unclear why bikeways would create impediments while the many other things taking up space on the street — parked cars, dumpsters, etc. — do not. Add to this the fact that the majority of calls firefighters respond to are medical emergencies rather than fires, and it would seem like bikeways, which slow vehicle speeds and reduce injuries and fatalities for all users, would be a benefit rather than a problem.
The right way to approach fire and street safety
Fire department concerns should be carefully considered when making changes to the layout of a street. However, uninformed opposition shouldn’t derail well-thought-out plans to make our shared space safer and more appealing for people biking and walking.
The Increase Fire Department Authority Bill would expand the veto power of fire departments on new road projects. This would force all California communities to consider access for fire vehicles first and road safety second, even though many more people die or are injured by traffic violence than by fires.
Providing fire departments with an additional poorly defined and poorly understood method of vetoing roadway safety projects will ultimately slow down or halt the shift toward safer roads in California’s cities. Fire departments have neither the resources nor the expertise to design streets and will have to rely on transportation departments to implement engineering changes.
There is a better way. Last year, the City of Berkeley created a street trauma prevention position within its fire department. That person will be responsible for mediating between the needs of vulnerable road users for safer streets and the access needs of first responders. It’s a bold and creative approach that could get fire departments beyond “no” to a more nuanced understanding of and approach to street safety.
CalBike opposes AB 612 as written but looks forward to working with the proponents. We hope to change the measure to one that supports a holistic approach to street safety. Today, CalBike, along with almost 30 allied organizations, sent the letter below, explaining our opposition to the bill unless it’s amended.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/bus-bike-and-car-lanes-cut.jpg6421600Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-03-19 19:21:112025-03-19 19:21:13CalBike Opposes Bill Giving Fire Departments More Control of Bikeways
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) provides one of the only statewide funding sources dedicated to biking and walking infrastructure projects. It is chronically underfunded, receiving far more excellent applications than it can greenlight, and recent cuts have made the situation even more dire.
Now, 13 senators and assemblymembers have signed on to a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. They are throwing their support behind the campaign to restore $400 million taken from the ATP in 2024.
Deep cuts to bike infrastructure
The ATP was targeted for cuts by the governor in the past two tight fiscal years. In 2023, legislators were able to restore funding for this program, which is one of California’s most equity-focused transportation programs and also one that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by making biking, walking, and taking transit safer and more appealing.
In 2024, legislators were only able to restore $200 million of the $600 million originally cut from the program. That allowed Cycle 7 of ATP grants to move forward, but the reduced funds meant that only 13 projects got funding, and local communities are rethinking their reliance on the ATP.
A demand to restore funding
Last year’s budget deal between the governor and the legislature called for restoring the $400 million cut from the ATP if future funds became available. CalBike and our allies have campaigned for the restoration of those funds, and that’s exactly what the letter signed by these legislators asks for. They note that $400 million could fund an additional 36 high-scoring projects from the ATP’s Cycle 7.
It’s rare for legislators to go on the record with a demand like this, and we commend them for supporting active transportation. If any of these legislators represents you, please send them a message thanking them.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/QB-3.jpg256768Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-03-18 15:20:212025-03-18 16:53:43California Legislators Stand Up for the Active Transportation Program
CalBike’s executive director, Kendra Ramsey, attended the League of American Bicyclists’ National Bike Summit, March 11-13, 2025. She sent us short updates from the Summit, which we posted in this open thread.
Thursday, March 13
Closing plenary
The closing plenary of the National Bike Summit featured one of the top transportation safety officials in the country, Chair Jennifer Homendy of the National Transportation Safety Board. Here are some of her words:
“We shouldn’t need stuff to feel safe. We can have all the stuff out there and it won’t matter; it just takes one,” she shared on the amount of gear Americans are expected to use while biking and walking to feel safe. “Safety is a right every road user should be able to expect. But the tragic reality is our system is failing.”
She continued: “Every single death, every single injury, is 100% preventable.”
She also discussed technology that can help create a safe system which protects all road users, including intelligent speed assist. She noted that it is no one’s right to break the law or take someone’s life.
She closed saying, “Anyone who can create a safer system can and should do so now.”
While I’ve been gone, my father in law has been taking my daughter out on her bike!
The final day of the National Bike Summit started with a panel on Responding to the Current Political Environment, which was both sobering and hopeful. Speakers suggested we filter out the noise and respond to the real challenges we face as a movement. The “noise” includes things like the information yesterday that any discretionary finding with the phrase “bike lane” will be frozen and reviewed. The real challenges include the “user pay, user benefit” model, which is being uplifted, and the false argument that bicyclists don’t pay taxes and shouldn’t be served by the transportation system.
Speakers highlighted that active transportation and healthy, prosperous communities are bipartisan issues, and that the reframing we may need to do to continue to secure funding is nothing new (wording changes with different leadership, so we’ve done this before!). If you ask most people if they think Americans should pay half of their income on housing and transportation, they would say no. Accordingly, we should be re-shaping our communities to meet the needs of our neighborhoods and our nation.
My next sessions cover the new AASHTO and NACTO bike guides, so I won’t bore you all with wonky details!
Wednesday, March 12
Another lobby day photo: most of the California folks from the evening reception on the Hill.
Lobby Day Part 2
I met with staff from Congresswoman Matsui’s office this afternoon (who represents Sacramento, where I live). We stressed the need to defend the funding of already awarded bike projects, and fight for active transportation funding in the next transportation reauthorization. They shared that with the current climate, having Republican support for our projects is more critical than ever, and suggested folks in our communities reach out to their republican Congresspeople to ask for critical bike projects to continue to be funded — especially those that have been frozen!
Lobby Day Part 1
We started the day with the Congressional Bike Ride, led by the Chair of the Congressional Bike Caucus, Mike Thompson of California’s District 4. He spoke about the importance of bicycling, and shared his motto “the bike is the cure.”
The California delegation regrouped at the Bike Lobby Day headquarters, then headed out for multiple meetings. I accompanied Anya McCann of North Natomas Jibe (@Jibewithus) to meet Congressmember Thompson outside of a Ways and Means Committee hearing. He was eager to hear how the Congressional Bike Caucus can be more helpful to the bike movement, and we discussed the threats to funding existing and future active transportation projects.
Wednesday advocates from across California will be meeting with our elected representatives to share the successes of federal active transportation funding, and ask for support in continuing this critical support for our communities.
… more to come!
Bicycle Friendly Communities have twice the ridership of all communities in the US. -Bill Nesper, ED of the League of American Bicyclists
Americans of all backgrounds want stronger, healthier communities — Bill Nesper … and bicycling makes our communities stronger and healthier
You can take zero transportation classes and graduate as a professional engineer. You can’t build the kind of streets that encourage people to walk or bike.
“Factor of Safety” mentality: engineers design so that “9 out of 10 drunk orangutans would survive a crash.” Wide clear zones protect the most out of control drivers by placing bicyclists and pedestrians right in the clear zone, where the drivers will crash.
Measuring fatalities by VMT makes us think roads are getting safer, but looking at it by population shows the true risk (exposure metric). Measuring based on VMT comes from a manual a car-maker produced, not based on any scientific reasoning.
Discussed the ineffectiveness of education campaigns when our roads are built for speed and the safety of car drivers. (Eye ball heads is a campaign from Colorado to get peds to make eye contact with drivers before crossing).
Tim Oey, me, and Justin Hu-Nguyen talk bike education in school at lunch.
Downtown protected bikeway tour, led by several staff from the District Department of Transportation. DC was planned by L’Enfant to have very wide streets for grandeur, which today results in the ability for road width to be repurposed for bikes. The protected bikeways in the downtown core form a comfortable network which has expanded steadily over the past decade. Many are two-way, complete with bike signalization. They’re working to do more permanent concrete/pour in place curbing instead of flex posts to add better protection with less need for maintenance.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IMG_0707-e1742499232818.jpeg22984032Kendra Ramseyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKendra Ramsey2025-03-13 12:16:142025-03-20 14:46:26National Bike Summit (open thread)
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a work group meeting on March 5, 2025, to get feedback on proposed changes for the next application window of the E-Bike Incentive Project. Around 270 people attended the meeting, showing that interest in the program remains strong. Here is a summary of the proposed changes.
Current status of the program
CARB presented the current status of the program, including eligibility, specifications for eligible e-bikes, and the amount of the vouchers. Throughout the work group, questions and comments were a mix of concerns and issues with applying for vouchers and suggestions about proposed changes.
In the first application window, on December 18, 2024, there were 37,000 people in the waiting room by the time the portal opened at 6:00 p.m. Applicants in the work group reported being confused about the process and the difference between the waiting room and being in queue to apply.
By 6:42 p.m. on December 18, the first 1,500 people had completed their applications and the portal closed. At that point, there were nearly 100,000 people in line hoping to get e-bike vouchers. In the weeks after the launch, CARB and the program administrator fielded 20,000 inquiries about the program.
As of March 5, almost all of the first 1,500 applications have been reviewed, and 800 people have redeemed vouchers to buy e-bikes, amounting to a disbursement of approximately $1 million. CARB reported that 97% of applicants so far fall into the high-priority categories because they make less than 225% of the federal poverty level, live in an environmentally disadvantaged community, or live in a low-income census tract.
Proposed improvements for the next application window
Attendees had numerous complaints about the chaotic application process in the first window. People would like to be able to set up an account ahead of time and upload their paperwork. Unfortunately, according to Shaun Ransom, the CARB staffer in charge of the E-Bike Incentive Project, the cost to create all those accounts is prohibitive because interest is so high.
Several people, including those representing community-based organizations (CBOs) partnering with the project complained that the short notice for the first application window (less than two weeks) didn’t give them or their communities enough time to prepare. CARB promised to give 30 days notice of future application opportunities and send multiple emails to alert people to get ready.
Some commenters thought the windows were or should be a lottery. The first come, first served model disadvantages people with slower internet speeds or less access to technology. CARB’s proposal for the next application window is to add a randomizer, making selection more like a lottery. Applicants would have a half hour window during which they could enter a waiting room. After 30 minutes, the waiting room would close and the randomizing software would choose 1,500 people at random. Those people would get a link to enter the application portal. Those not chosen would be notified immediately and wouldn’t need to wait in line.
Administering a program with such overwhelming demand presents technical challenges. Despite rumors and reports to the contrary, the first window went relatively smoothly and avoided crashing the servers. CARB’s proposed changes should make the process clearer for applicants and fairer for those who need more time to log on to the website.
A greater role for community organizations
The CBO network working with the E-Bike Incentive Project raises awareness of the program among underserved communities and helps members of those communities navigate the application process and buy an e-bike. However, CBO representatives reported having little to do after the first launch because few or none of the people they serve were able to secure vouchers. CARB presented a proposal to administer 500 vouchers directly through CBOs to allow them to connect people with the greatest need of inexpensive, sustainable transportation to the incentive program.
CalBike has advocated for direct distribution through CBOs. It gives people who might have a hard time applying online because of issues with internet access, language barriers, disabilities, or other barriers a chance to benefit from the program. CBOs can identify people who are likely to get the most use from an e-bike and provide after-purchase support with group rides and in-person safety classes.
However, the current CARB proposal is to distribute 500 vouchers through CBOs and 1,000 through the online portal during the next application window. We believe the pace of distribution is too slow, particularly given the enormity of the need. We will urge CARB to make the CBO distribution additive to the total vouchers available in the window, rather than subtractive, and distribute 2,000 vouchers during the next application cycle.
Program administrator applications opening
CARB awarded the contract to administer the initial $10 million approved by the legislature to Pedal Ahead. The agency later added another $3 million to the program and allocated an additional $18 million in a subsequent budget. The additional $3 million was initially added to the first $10 million contract but may now be shifted to the second tranche of funding, increasing that to $21 million.
Applications to administer the second tranche of funding will open and close in the second quarter of 2025. CARB plans to announce the third-party administrator for the next round of e-bike incentives in the third quarter of this year.
A recording of the work group will be available in two weeks, and we’ll add it to this post. In the meantime, here are the slides.
(SACRAMENTO) – Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) introduced AB 954, which would launch a pilot program for Caltrans to develop a bike highway program. Offering full separation from motor vehicles, bike highways accommodate high volumes of people traveling longer distance on bicycles (more than 3 miles) by connecting users to major destinations, employment centers, and transit hubs. CalBike is a sponsor of this measure.
“I’d like to see California elevate our offerings to our residents,” said Assemblymember Steve Bennett. “We must strengthen and diversify the connections neighborhood to neighborhood and from city to city. Bike highways provide the highest sense of safety and will attract more people to take advantage of their bikes. If you build it, they will come.”
“The Bicycle Highways Bill will create a safe, separated bikeway network, similar to California’s highway system,” said CalBike Policy Director Jared Sanchez. “This is an essential step to make getting around by bike a viable option for more Californians. We know better infrastructure leads to more biking and we know that more biking is crucial to combat climate change, so CalBike is excited to sponsor this bill.”
Kate Faulkner, Government Liaison for Channel Islands Bike Club said: “Channel Islands Bicycle Club, representing over 300 members, supports the Bicycle Highway Bill. Bike Highways will reduce traffic congestion, improve fitness and health, and provide travel options for those who don’t feel safe cycling on roads. Studies have shown that many people, particularly families, women, and seniors, would choose to bike if safe options are convenient and available.”
“The Bicycle Highway Pilot Program under AB 954 is a vital investment in both infrastructure and people. For BikeVentura.org, it’s an opportunity to expand our mission of delivering critical bicycle safety education to underserved communities, ensuring they can thrive in a transportation system designed with equity and safety at its core. BikeVentura stands proudly with Assemblymember Bennett on this transformative initiative,” said Lawrence Abele, Board Member of Bike Ventura.
Assemblymember Bennett has supported active transportation throughout his tenure in the State Legislature and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. He is chair of the Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Transportation, Climate Change, Natural Resources, and Energy.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Father-and-daughter-bike-path-scaled.jpg14402560CalBike Staffhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngCalBike Staff2025-03-06 12:25:552025-03-06 14:15:42California to Launch Bike Highway Pilot Program Under Bennett Bill
Robert Prinz from Bike East Bay and Warren Wells from the Marin County Bicycle Coalition contributed to this post.
Note: This post was updated on April 2, 2025.
Bay Area bicycle coalitions, with support from a broad range of local groups plus statewide and national advocates, have been fighting for over a year to keep the bike path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge open 24/7. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will hold a final vote to decide the fate of the path on Thursday, April 3, 2025 — two weeks later than the original date.
CalBike will attend the April 3 hearing and testify, and we hope you will, too, no matter where you live. If you’ve ever ridden over this bridge, you know the value of having bike access connecting the East Bay and Marin County. You can testify virtually; sign up to be notified when the item comes up.
Update: The hearing date has been postponed twice and the date for the new hearing hasn’t been announced. Sign up to get notified of the new hearing date. It’s crucial for supporters of bicycle and pedestrian access to this vital bay crossing to have our voices heard.
A local fight with statewide implications
CalBike doesn’t usually get involved in campaigns for local infrastructure other than offering support when asked. Our local partners are excellent at this advocacy and know their territory better; plus, we don’t have the capacity to weigh in on the many local projects throughout California. However, we feel the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge fight has statewide implications and calls for support from allies around California.
Last year, we signed onto a letter in support of the path with many other organizations.
Advocates, including CalBike, have worked for decades to gain bicycle access to all of the Bay Area’s toll bridges. CalBike has supported measures to keep the bicycle and pedestrian pathways on our bridges toll-free to ensure the broadest access, including the passage of AB 2669 in 2024, making toll bridges free permanently for people walking and biking.
Securing a path on the Richmond-San Rafael was a decades-long effort. The path, placed in what was formerly a breakdown lane, opened in the fall of 2019 for a four-year pilot period. It has proven immensely popular and spurred cities on both sides of the bridge to upgrade their bicycle infrastructure to improve access. Automated counters installed on the bridge show that more than 400,000 people have walked or ridden across the bridge since the path opened. Many of these are people going to work, school, and other destinations across the bridge — trips that would likely be by car without the bike path.
Opponents of the path started a movement to get rid of the path on Mondays through Thursdays, converting it into a car breakdown shoulder by moving an existing zipper barrier. The shoulder would be converted back into a biking and walking path only Thursday evening through Sunday evening under this plan.
The plan includes a shuttle for people who want to cross with a bike, but the hours are limited, it wouldn’t accommodate adaptive bicycles, it will only come every half hour outside commute hours, and future funding is uncertain. People biking and walking would have continuous access to the Richmond-San Rafael crossing for just three days out of the week.
Those favoring adding more traffic on the bridge cite increased pollution in Richmond and worsening traffic, even though the air quality study they point to does not show an impact from the path. Emissions data has shown reduced pollution on the upper deck where the trail was added but increased pollution during winter months on the lower deck with the additional car lane.
Caltrans data shows only a slight increase in commute times. Travel speeds on the upper deck of the bridge are lower since the path was added and there’s been a significant reduction in collisions on that level, while the number of crashes has increased on the lower deck where a third car lane was added.
Ultimately, attempting to “fix” car congestion by making it easier to drive will lead to more traffic, more pollution, and just as much congestion. Induced demand is real, no matter how much people want to wish it away.
Protecting the right to bike and walk everywhere
Bicycle and pedestrian access to California’s bridges is crucial. Bridges are vital links between communities that can’t be replicated on surface streets. This is particularly true in the Bay Area, where bridges provide connections across the snaking arms of the San Francisco Bay.
The Richmond-San Rafael pathway pilot has been a success. People bike and walk across the span for recreation and commuting. Moving forward, we need more options for active transportation, not fewer.
CalBike is showing up to speak up for bridges that serve everyone. We hope you will too.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/RSR-bridge-ride-with-BEB-e1695844242116-600x353-1.jpg353600Laura McCamyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngLaura McCamy2025-03-05 19:39:492025-04-02 13:54:35Advocates Fight Potential Loss of Bike/Ped Access to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
