“Richmond–San Rafael Bridge”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The Richmond–San Rafael Bridge (also officially named the John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge^[2]) is the northernmost of the east–west crossings of the San Francisco Bay in California, USA. Officially named after California State Senator John F. McCarthy, it bridges Interstate 580 from Richmond on the east to San Rafael on the west. It opened in 1956, replacing ferry service by the Richmond–San Rafael Ferry Company.^[3]

History

Early proposals

Proposals for a bridge were advanced in the 1920s, preceding the completion of the Golden Gate Bridge. In 1927, Roy O. Long of The Richmond–San Rafael Bridge, Incorporated, applied for a franchise to construct and operate a private toll bridge. The proposed 1927 Long bridge would have been a steel suspension bridge, carrying a {{convert|30|ft|m|adj=mid|-wide}} roadway for a distance of {{convert|14600|ft}} at an estimated construction cost of {{US$|12000000|1927|round=-5}}. The bridge would afford a maximum vertical clearance of {{convert|135|ft}} with a {{convert|1200|ft|adj=on}} main span.^[4] Charles Derleth, Jr. was selected as the consulting engineer, after having served in that role for the recently completed Carquinez Bridge.^[5] The Long bridge would have spanned San Pablo Bay between Point Orient (in Contra Costa County) to just below McNear's Point (in Marin County), and Long was granted the franchise in February 1928 by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.^[6]

A competing proposed bridge also came out in 1927, from Charles Van Damme of the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Company. The 1927 Van Damme bridge would have carried a {{convert|27|ft|m|adj=mid|-wide}} roadway for a distance of {{convert|19000|ft}} at an identical estimated construction cost of {{US$|12000000|1927|round=-5}}.^[7] It would have spanned San Pablo Bay from Castro Point (Contra Costa County) to Point San Quentin (Marin County), approximately the same routing as the eventually completed 1956 bridge.^[6] Although the 1927 Long bridge had been granted a franchise in February 1928, Van Damme subsequently petitioned to reopen the case, since the ferry company owned the land at the proposed eastern terminus and therefore should have been favored in the franchise selection process.^[8] Also, since the ferry company's franchise rights were not set to expire until the 1950s, Long's 1927 bridge cost would have increased to reimburse losses to ferry revenues.^[7] Soon after winning the franchise rights, Long approached Van Damme with an offer to buy the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Company for {{US$|1250000|1928|round=-5}}.^[9]

Van Damme and Long later agreed in September 1928 to merge their interests for a combined bridge proposal between Point San Pablo (Contra Costa County) and McNear's Point (Marin County).^[10] The combined project, now headed by Oscar Klatt for the American Toll Bridge Company, received approval for the routing from then-Secretary of War Good in May 1929, although vertical and horizontal clearances for the proposed bridge were not fully established at the time.^[11] In November 1929, vertical clearance had been increased to {{convert|160|ft}} to satisfy Navy requirements.^[12] The construction permit was issued in February 1930.^[13]

Klatt's 1929 bridge was dormant for nearly a decade following the issuance of a construction permit in 1930. An extension was filed in 1938 to allow construction to start as late as February 1942,^[14] and fresh plans for a bridge district to facilitate financing were announced in 1939.^[15] In 1947, interest was revived in bridging Marin and Contra Costa Counties.^[16]

Tomasini's San Francisco–Alameda–Marin crossings

A third bridge was proposed in late 1927 by the enigmatic T.A. Tomasini.^[17] Tomasini's 1927 bridge called for two lanes of automobile traffic straddling a central rail line from San Pedro Hill (Marin) to San Pablo station (Contra Costa), a distance of over {{convert|5|mi}}.^[18] In 1928, Tomasini presented a revised bridge proposal which would be further south than the other two bridges, spanning the water from Albany (in Alameda County) to Tiburon. The 1928 Tomasini Albany–Tiburon bridge was the longest of the three proposed bridges by a significant margin.^[8]^[19] The proposed Albany–Tiburon bridge would have been similar in concept to the 1967 San Mateo–Hayward Bridge, with a high-level western section approximately {{convert|7700|ft}} long transitioning to a low-level eastern causeway. The western section featured two {{convert|1000|ft|m|adj=mid|-wide}} spans to cross the navigation channels, with the western navigation span having a minimum vertical clearance of {{convert|150|ft}} and the eastern navigation span having a minimum vertical clearance of {{convert|135|ft}}.^[24] The {{convert|1000|ft|m|adj=mid|-wide}} navigation channels for the proposed Albany–Tiburon bridge were opposed by shipping interests, who wanted the channels to be {{convert|1500|ft}} wide instead. The cost of the longer spans required would have made the proposed Albany–Tiburon bridge impractical, and Tomasini argued that "any mariner who could not negotiate a bridge such as proposed should lose his license."^[20]

Tomasini would later add a bridge spanning Richardson Bay in March 1928 from Sausalito to Belvedere to his proposal.^[10] The additional Sausalito–Belvedere bridge would have been {{convert|7300|ft}} long and {{convert|22|ft}} wide with a lift span to allow the passage of large vessels, at an estimated cost of {{US$|750000|1928|round=-5}}.^[21]^[22] Meanwhile, in April 1928 Tomasini recruited the prominent Ralph Modjeski to serve as the consulting head engineer for the proposed Albany–Tiburon span,^[23] and Modjeski promptly complimented the plans that had been drawn up by Tomasini's chief engineer, Erle L. Cope.^[22] The design for a lift span in the proposed Sausalito–Belvedere bridge was changed to a bascule after public comments were received from a local shipbuilder.^[24] Tomasini received a permit for the Sausalito–Belvedere bridge from the War Department in December 1928.^[25] Tomasini had planned to commence construction of the Sausalito–Belvedere bridge in July 1930,^[26] but he was met with opposition from the Tiburon-Belvedere Chamber of Commerce, who felt the creation of a bridge would eliminate the promised San Francisco-Tiburon ferry service.^[27] In 1931, the Richardson Bay Redwood Bridge was opened, which was the largest structure in the world constructed of redwood.^[28] The Redwood Bridge carried the Redwood Highway (present-day US 101) and spanned the upper reach of Richardson Bay,^[29] eliminating some of the need for the proposed Sausalito–Belvedere bridge. The Redwood Bridge would be replaced by a concrete structure in the 1950s.^[30]

Tomasini continued to add to the project scope in July 1928 by proposing a bridge and tunnel to join San Francisco to the proposed Albany–Tiburon bridge. The tunnel would run roughly northeast from Bay Street and Grant Avenue, not far from present-day Pier 39, at a depth of {{convert|50|ft}} below low tide water level for {{convert|11200|ft}}. At that point, the tunnel would surface northwest of Goat Island, and then transition to a bridge nearly {{convert|4|mi}} long with a minimum vertical clearance of {{convert|50|ft}} and two lift spans connecting to the proposed Albany–Tiburon bridge. The cost of the entire project was {{US$|55670000|1928|round=-5}}, split as {{US$|20000000|1928|round=-5}} for the Albany–Tiburon bridge, {{US$|670000|1928|round=-5}} for the Sausalito–Belvedere bridge, and {{US$|35000000|1928|round=-5}} for the San Francisco–Marin–Alameda tunnel and bridge.^[31] Tomasini organized each of the three proposed structures as independent projects, preferably to be worked simultaneously, but in the event that one was not approved, it would not delay the construction of the other two.^[31] San Francisco's board of supervisors rejected Tomasini's San Francisco–Marin–Alameda tunnel and bridge in September 1928, although the board's action was non-binding.^[32]

By February 1932, Tomasini's proposed Albany–Tiburon bridge had changed to a combination bridge—tunnel. The bridge portion was a low trestle approximately {{convert|19800|ft}} long, extending westward from Point Fleming in Albany in Alameda County. The proposed tunnel would have been {{convert|17200|ft}} long and ventilated by four towers, emerging at Bluff Point near Tiburon in Marin County.^[33] Total estimated cost for the two structures was now {{US$|35000000|1932|round=-5}} and despite opposition from the US Navy, who cited potential navigation hazards,^[34] the bridge—tunnel was approved by the War Department in July 1932.^[33] Although he had the permit to begin work, Tomasini filed numerous annual extensions to retain the rights through 1941,^[35] apparently due to a lack of funding to start work. Tomasini was still scrambling for funding in August 1941, seeking the issue of bonds worth {{US$|20000000|1941|round=-5}}.^[36] Tomasini lost the rights to the crossing in October 1941,^[37] which was not the first time he was opposed by Earl Warren, who had questioned the validity of Tomasini's franchise as early as 1933.^[38] Still, Tomasini was doggedly trying to advance his plans as late as 1948.^[39]

Construction: 1953–1956

In 1949, the County of Marin and the City of Richmond commissioned a preliminary engineering report from Earl and Wright of San Francisco, which concluded that a bridge would be feasible.^[40] A follow-up 1950 study, conducted by the Division of San Francisco Bay Toll Crossings, was commissioned by Marin County and the City of Richmond using {{US$|200000|1950|round=-4}} in state funding. The 1950 report concluded the bridge could be built in accordance with the California Toll Bridge Authority Act.^[40] The preliminary design was approved on {{date|1951-08-08|mdy}} and California approved the preliminary report on {{date|1951-11-27|mdy}}. The California Toll Bridge Authority authorized the issue of {{US$|72000000|1952|round=-5}} in bonds on {{date|1952-11-07|mdy}} and subsequently sold {{US$|62000000|1953|round=-5}} on {{date|1953-02-26|mdy}} to construct a single-deck bridge. The remaining {{US$|10000000|1953|round=-5}} was reserved for construction contingencies and to complete the lower deck of the bridge.^[51] The $62 million raised from bond sales was divided into three parts: {{US$|50000000|1953|round=-5}} for construction, {{US$|10000000|1953|round=-5}} to address interest obligations on the bonds during the construction period, and {{US$|2000000|1953|round=-5}} in construction contingency.^[51] In 1954, Governor Knight declared the second deck should not be delayed in the public interest, and {{US$|6000000|1955|round=-5}} was loaned from the State School Land Fund in 1955 to complete the second deck. The bridge was finished $4 million under budget.^[53]

During the study period, an earth and rock-fill bridge with lift structures was considered, but the high-level bridge was chosen as the cost of a low bridge with navigation locks and lifting structures was prohibitive.^[40]

The majority of construction costs were tied up in two contracts, which were opened for bidding on {{date|1952-12-19}}. The first contract was for the substructure, which was awarded to the low bidder of the Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. — Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. Joint Venture for {{US$|14234550|1953|round=-5}}. The second contract was for the superstructure, which was awarded to the low bidder at {{US$|21099319|1953|round=-5}} by a joint venture between Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. — A. Soda & Son — Judson Pacific Murphy Corp.^[40] The substructure construction moved rapidly, with an estimated 45% of piers completed approximately a year after the contract was awarded.^[1]

At the time the bridge was completed, it was hailed as the world's second-longest bridge, behind the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge^[41] and the longest continuous steel bridge.^[42]

Historical notes

Upon its opening, the Richmond–San Rafael bridge was the last bridge across San Francisco Bay to replace a previous ferry service, leaving the Benicia–Martinez Ferry across Carquinez Strait as the only remaining auto ferry in the Bay Area (it would be replaced by a bridge in 1962).

Description

The bridge—including approaches—measures 5.5 miles (29,040 feet / 8,851.39 m / 8.9 km) long. At the time it was built, it was one of the world's longest bridges. The bridge spans two ship channels and has two separate main cantilever spans. Both main cantilever spans are raised to allow ship traffic to pass, and in between, there is a "dip" in the elevation of the center section,^[43] giving the bridge a vertical undulation or "roller coaster" appearance and also the nickname "roller coaster span". To save money, the cantilever main spans share identical symmetric designs, so the "uphill" grade on the approach required for the elevated span is duplicated on the other "downhill" side, resulting in a depressed center truss section.^[44] In addition, because the navigation channels are not parallel to each other, the bridge also does not follow a straight line.^[45] This appearance has also been referred to as a "bent coat hanger".^[46]

After it was completed, many were disappointed by the aesthetics of the low budget bridge,^[47] including Frank Lloyd Wright, who reportedly called for its destruction.^[48] The neighboring Golden Gate Bridge and the western span of Bay Bridge were considered engineering and historical marvels, and the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge was not considered to be in the same class. However, the senior engineers for the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge were the same engineers that worked on the Bay Bridge^[49] and the resulting design echoed the lessons learned from the eastern span of the Bay Bridge.^[50]

From west (Point San Quentin) to east (Castro Point), the bridge consists of:^[51]^[52]

Excluding approaches, the bridge structures comprise a total length of {{convert|21335|ft}} on the upper deck and {{convert|22125|ft}} on the lower deck. Despite the varying height of the bridge, roadway grades are limited to 3% or less.^[40]^[52] As completed, the bridge has two decks each capable of carrying three lanes of traffic. {{As of|2018}}, westbound traffic rides on the upper deck and is marked with two lanes of vehicle traffic and a shoulder, while eastbound traffic rides on the lower deck and features two lanes of vehicle traffic as well as a third lane that is activated during evening commute hours and serves as a shoulder when not in use. The extra lane features lights indicating that the lane is open or closed.^[71] The third lane has been used for various purposes other than traffic, such as carrying a water pipeline during a drought.

The bridge stands on 79 reinforced concrete piers supported on steel H-piles. Nine piers stand on land, eight are in cofferdams near the Contra Costa terminus, and the remaining 62 are bell-type piers with a flared base.^[52] The original deck was a {{convert|5.5|in|adj=on}} thick reinforced concrete slab, with a mortar wearing surface {{convert|0.5|in}} thick.^[53] To facilitate maintenance, the bridge was designed with two {{convert|2.5|in}} lines (carrying compressed air and potable water) extending from end to end. Each deck was also equipped with three overhead maintenance tracks.^[53]

Public transit service

Tolls

Tolls are only collected from westbound traffic headed to San Rafael at the toll plaza on the east side of the bridge. Since January 2019, the toll rate for (two axle) passenger cars and motorcycles is $6.^[56] During peak traffic hours, high-occupancy vehicles (defined as two-axle vehicles without trailers, carrying three or more people; two-axle vehicles designed with two passenger seats without trailers, carrying two people; or motorcycles) pay a discounted toll of $3.^[56]^[57]^[58] Since January 1, 2019, for vehicles with more than two axles, the toll rate is $16 for 3 axles and $5 per each additional axle over 3, up to a maximum toll of $36 for vehicles with seven or more axles.^[56]^[59] Drivers may either pay by cash or use the FasTrak electronic toll collection device.

Historical toll rates

The following initial toll rates were adopted on July 10, 1956 prior to the opening of the bridge:

The basic toll (for automobiles) on the seven state bridges, including the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge, was raised to $1 by Regional Measure 1, approved by Bay Area voters in 1988.^[62] A $1 seismic retrofit surcharge was added in 1998 by the state legislature, originally for eight years, but since then extended to December 2037 (AB1171, October 2001).^[63] On March 2, 2004, voters approved Regional Measure 2, raising the toll by another dollar to a total of $3. An additional dollar was added to the toll starting January 1, 2007, to cover cost overruns concerning the replacement of the eastern span.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional transportation agency, in its capacity as the Bay Area Toll Authority, administers RM1 and RM2 funds, a significant portion of which are allocated to public transit capital improvements and operating subsidies in the transportation corridors served by the bridges. Caltrans administers the "second dollar" seismic surcharge, and receives some of the MTC-administered funds to perform other maintenance work on the bridges. The Bay Area Toll Authority is made up of appointed officials put in place by various city and county governments, and is not subject to direct voter oversight.^[64]

Due to further funding shortages for seismic retrofit projects, the Bay Area Toll Authority again raised tolls on all seven of the state-owned bridges in July 2010. The toll rate for autos on the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge was thus increased to $5.^[65]

In June 2018, Bay Area voters approved Regional Measure 3 to further raise the tolls on all seven of the state-owned bridges to fund $4.5 billion worth of transportation improvements in the area.^[66]^[67] Under the passed measure, the toll rate for autos on the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge will be increased to $6 on January 1, 2019; to $7 on January 1, 2022; and then to $8 on January 1, 2025.^[68]

Improvements

Seismic retrofit

In the fall of 2001, the bridge commenced an extensive seismic retrofit program,^[69] similar to other bridges in the area.^[70] The retrofit was designed by a three-way joint venture between Gerwick/Sverdrup/DMJM under a {{US$|19000000|1995|round=-5}} design contract awarded in 1995.^[71] The retrofit is intended to allow the two-tier bridge to withstand a 7.4 magnitude earthquake on the Hayward Fault and an 8.3 magnitude quake on the San Andreas Fault. The foundation piers were strengthened by wrapping the lower section of structural steel in a concrete casing, installing new shear piles, and adding bracing to the structural steel towers.^[72] Isolation joints and bearings were also added to the main bridge structures (cantilever spans over the navigation channels) to strengthen the structure.^[73]

The fifty-year-old bridge was also showing its age and required age-related maintenance which was performed in conjunction with the seismic upgrade work. There were reports of cars being damaged while traveling on the lower deck by fist-sized concrete chunks falling from the joints of upper deck slabs.

A major part of the retrofit involved the long concrete causeway on the Marin side, which as part of the retrofit program, was nearly completely replaced. Because of the active use of the bridge, Caltrans designed the project to allow the bridge to remain open to traffic. For economy, schedule efficiency and traffic impact mitigation, much of the repair work was fabricated off site and shipped to the bridge by barge.

To reduce impacts to traffic the major work was performed at night. Caltrans kept two lanes of traffic moving in each direction during daylight hours, then reduced that flow to a single lane in each direction at night. Thus, one trestle was completely closed, and the other trestle had two-way traffic.

The concrete segments of the trestle were precast in Petaluma and barged to the site. At monthly intervals tugs positioned barges with one or two {{convert|100|ft|m|adj=mid|-long}}, 500-ton pre-cast concrete roadway segments to be lifted into place by a 900-ton barge-mounted crane. Earlier, either two or four of the corroded, {{convert|50|ft|m|adj=mid}} concrete segments of the old roadway were removed by crane. Then, a pile driver was moved into position for driving new piles. After the new concrete road segment was in place, steel plates were used to temporarily fill the gaps, and the roadway was ready for morning traffic. At times, construction backed up traffic to Highway 101 into central San Rafael.

The completion of this retrofit, on September 22, 2005 was celebrated as a success despite the many challenges, including the deaths of two workers.

The retrofit was originally estimated by Caltrans engineers at {{US$|329000000|1999|round=-5}},^[70] but Caltrans adjusted the estimate to {{US$|393272000|2000|round=-5}} in 2000 during the bidding process.^[74] While most of the resulting bids were close to {{US$|545000000|2000|round=-5}}, the low bid came in at {{US$|484403479|2000|round=-5}} from the Tutor-Saliba/Koch/Tidewater Joint Venture.^[74] Caltrans revised their estimate to {{US$|665000000|2001|round=-5}} in May 2001 when more funds were appropriated for California's Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program in Assembly Bill 1171.^[75] The cost was again adjusted during an August 2004 review by Caltrans, this time to {{US$|914000000|2004|round=-5}}.^[76] The final cost of the retrofit, however, was $778 million, or $136 million below this August 2004 estimate.^[76]

Third lanes

In both directions, the bridge is wide enough to accommodate three lanes of traffic. Currently the third lane is used as a right-hand shoulder or a "breakdown lane" and is marked along the bridge with the signs "Emergency Parking Only".

In 1977, Marin County was suffering one of its worst droughts in history. A temporary on-surface pipeline, six miles (10 km) long, was placed in the third lane. The pipe transferred 8,000,000 gallons of water a day from the East Bay Municipal Utility District's mains in Richmond to Marin's 170,000 residents. By 1978, the drought subsided and the pipeline was removed. The disused third lane was then restriped as a shoulder.

In 1989, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, the third lane was opened up as a normal lane to accommodate increased traffic after the Bay Bridge was shut down because of a failure of that span.{{cn|date=May 2018}} Many commuters from San Francisco drove across the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin and then across the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge to go to Oakland (and vice versa). After the Bay Bridge was reopened, the third lane was again closed.

On February 11, 2015, the Bay Area Toll Authority approved a plan to install a protected bike and pedestrian path on the wide shoulder of the upper deck of the bridge. The path had been expected to be complete in 2017,^[77] though this has not yet occurred. As part of the same project, a third eastbound lane^[78] was added on the lower deck to be available for evening commutes.^[79]

Closures

Like most San Francisco Bay bridges, this bridge is occasionally closed due to strong crosswinds. The bridge was closed on the morning of Friday, January 4, 2008 as a southerly wind gusting to nearly {{convert|70|mi/h|km/h|abbr=on}} buffeted the span, knocking over four trucks on the lower deck and one truck on the upper deck. The bridge was closed for six hours. It was re-opened by late afternoon as the strong winds subsided.{{citation needed|date=November 2014}}

This was not the first closure due to high winds. A tractor-trailer overturned in high winds in 1963, forcing the closure of two lanes.^[80] At least one previous event occurred in the late 1970s when high northerly winds forced the CHP to close the bridge. Wind gusts (reported in the Marin Independent Journal) reached 80 mph.{{citation needed|date=November 2014}}

On October 27, 2000 the toll plaza allowed people to cross free of charge due to a "shelter in place" order affecting toll booth operators. The order was given by the Richmond Fire Department in response to a release of toxic gas from a recycling plant.^[81]

On February 7, 2019 the bridge was closed for several hours due to concrete falling from the upper deck to the lower.^[82]

In popular culture & film

The novel Abuse of Power by Michael Savage has several important scenes set on the bridge. In one, the hero Jack Hatfield escapes his enemies by climbing the work ladders built into the piers.

In the movie: Magnum Force, the bridge is in the background when Dirty Harry and the rookie cop are on motorcycles on the ship's decks where they attempt to subdue each other.^[83] The bridge is also visible in the 1982 film 48 Hours.

References

1. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20150809/NEWS/150809801 |title=Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Traffic volume hits five-year high |author=Prado, Mark |date=9 August 2015 |newspaper=Marin Independent Journal |accessdate=25 February 2016}}
2. ^2013 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California, California Department of Transportation, 2013, pp. 150, 154 and 246. This State of California document indicates that the bridge has two official names, both enacted by legislative resolution, in 1955 and 1981 respectively.
3. ^{{cite book | chapterurl = http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb2m3nb1b0&chunk.id=div00033&doc.view=entire_text | chapter = Changes in the Richmond Waterfront | accessdate = 2009-02-25 | title = Memories of the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Company | last1 = Snodgrass | first1 = Marion Myers | last2 = Dunning | first2 = Judith K | year = 1992 | url = http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb2m3nb1b0 | location = Berkeley, Calif. | publisher = Bancroft Library}}
4. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19270409.2.3&srpos=33 |title=Bridge Hearing Put Over Till Monday, 11th |author= |date=9 April 1927 |volume=XXXXIII |number=15 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
5. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19270226.2.13&srpos=16 |title=Propose to Construct Steel Bridge Over San Pablo Bay |author= |date=26 February 1927 |volume=XXXXIII |number=9 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
6. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280211.2.38&srpos=5 |title=Local News |author= |date=11 February 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=6 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
7. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19271231.2.10&srpos=6 |title=Ferry Head to Apply for Span Permit |author= |date=31 December 1927 |volume=XXXXIII |number=53 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
8. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280331.2.28&srpos=4 |title=One Bridge Gets Franchise, Other Given Rehearing |author= |date=31 March 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=13 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
9. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280225.2.41&srpos=3 |title=Richmond Ferry is Sold to Bridge Co. |author= |date=25 February 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=8 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
10. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280928.2.30&srpos=1 |title=Rivals Agree On Contra Costa to Marin Crossing |author= |date=28 September 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=38 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
11. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=MT19290513.2.7&srpos=3 |title=Bay Span Plan Gets Approval |author= |date=13 May 1929 |newspaper=Madera Tribune |agency=United Press Dispatch |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
12. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19291122.2.58&srpos=2 |title=Favorable Bridge Plans are Filed|author= |date=22 November 1929 |volume=XXXXXV |number=47 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
13. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=MT19300211.2.33&srpos=1 |title=Bay Bridge Permit Given |author= |date=11 February 1929 |newspaper=Madera Tribune |agency=United Press Dispatch |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
14. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19381020.2.91&srpos=29 |title=Bridge Franchise Extension Asked |author= |date=20 October 1938 |volume=LIII |number=42 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
15. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19390420.2.18&srpos=30 |title=Richmond-S.R. Bridge Plan Under Way |author= |date=20 April 1939 |volume=LIV |number=16 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
16. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19470918.2.71&srpos=72 |title=Revive Richmond-S.R. Bridge Plan |author= |date=18 September 1947 |volume=62 |number=43 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
17. ^Thomas A. Tomasini, resident in San Francisco, is also noted as the inventor of the 1916 {{patent|US|1200049|"Automobile Spring"}} as well as being a participant in the 1915 automobile Vanderbilt Cup Race, where he did not start due to crashing in practice.
18. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19271217.2.13&srpos=18 |title=Span Interests Eastern Capital |author= |date=17 December 1927 |volume=XXXXIII |number=51 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016}}
19. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280114.2.48&srpos=11 |title=Battle Expected Against Bay Span |author= |date=14 January 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=2 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
20. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19281019.2.20&srpos=30 |title=Shipping Men Try to Block Tomasini Bay Bridge Plan |author= |date=19 October 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=41 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
21. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280317.2.2&srpos=45 |title=Belvedere Bridge Could be Erected by Summer of '29 |author= |date=17 March 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=11 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
22. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280421.2.6&srpos=41 |title=Belvedere Span Hearing is Set |author= |date=21 April 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=16 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
23. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280414.2.14&srpos=43 |title=Tomasini Signs Up Modjeski for Tiburon Bridge |author= |date=14 April 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=15 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
24. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280914.2.2&srpos=11 |title=S.F. Delays Plan of Tomasini for North Bay Bridge |author= |date=14 September 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=36 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
25. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19281228.2.3&srpos=9 |title=Tomasini Gets Sausalito-Belvedere Bridge Permit |author= |date=28 December 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=51 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
26. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19300627.2.3&srpos=2 |title=Tomasini to Start Construction Work on Richardson Bay |author= |date=27 June 1930 |volume=XXXXVI |number=26 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
27. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19300711.2.41&srpos=3 |title=Tiburon-Belvedere Now Doesn't Want Tomasini Crossing |author= |date=11 July 1930 |volume=XXXXVI |number=28 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
28. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19311113.2.69 |title=Plan is Perfected for South Marin Highway Affair |author= |date=13 November 1931 |volume=XXXXVII |number=46 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=29 February 2016 }}
29. ^{{cite journal |url=http://www.marinmagazine.com/May-2009/History-of-a-Highway/ |title=History of a Highway: Marin's 101 was first established in 1909 |author=Wood, Jim |date=May 2009 |journal=Marin Magazine |accessdate=29 February 2016 }}
30. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.marinij.com/events/20110323/moving-marin-the-enormous-role-of-bridges-ferries-trains-highways |title=Moving Marin: The enormous role of bridges, ferries, trains, highways |author=Prado, Mark |date=23 March 2011 |newspaper=Marin Independent Journal |accessdate=29 February 2016 }}
31. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280713.2.10&srpos=15 |title=Plans Marin-S.F. Connection with Bridge and Tube |author= |date=13 July 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=27 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=25 February 2016 }}
32. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19280921.2.2&srpos=10 |title=S.F. Turns Down Span Connection to Marin County |author= |date=21 September 1928 |volume=XXXXIV |number=37 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
33. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=MT19320716.2.2&srpos=7 |title=Approve Bay Bridge Plan |author= |date=16 July 1932 |volume=LX |number=63 |newspaper=Madera Daily Tribune and Madera Mercury |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
34. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19320401.2.37&srpos=19 |title=Tomasini's Bridge Plan Protested |author= |date=1 April 1932 |volume=XXXXVIII |number=14 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=24 February 2016 }}
35. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19401205.2.83&srpos=5 |title=Tomasini Bridge Permit Extension Again Asked |author= |date=5 December 1940 |volume=LV |number=48 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
36. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19410821.2.22&srpos=4 |title=20 Million Bond Issue Sought for Span-Tube |author= |date=21 August 1941 |volume=LVI |number=34 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
37. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19411002.2.8&srpos=3 |title=Rights to Span Tube Lost by Tomasini |author= |date=2 October 1941 |volume=LVI |number=40 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
38. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19330407.2.44&srpos=7 |title=Tomasini Says He Is Going to Build Span |author= |date=7 April 1933 |volume=XLVIII |number=14 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
39. ^{{cite news |url=http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SN19481216.2.58&srpos=1 |title=Richardson Bay Bridge Plan Again Revived |author= |date=16 December 1948 |volume=63 |number=51 |newspaper=Sausalito News |accessdate=26 February 2016 }}
40. ^¹²³⁴{{cite journal |url=http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1953_novdec.pdf |title=New Bay Crossing: Story of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge |pages=1–6; 64 |volume=32 |number=11–12 |author=Raab, Norman A. |date=November–December 1953 |journal=California Highways and Public Works |publisher=California Department of Public Works |accessdate=18 February 2016 }}
41. ^{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zCEhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=72QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2923%2C2231090 |title=Frisco Adds Another Bridge To Skyline |author= |date=16 August 1956 |newspaper=Sarasota Herald-Tribune |accessdate=1 March 2016}}
42. ^{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nORQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mSUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7048%2C1698009 |title=Straits Bridge Claim Challenged on Coast |author= |date=24 June 1958 |newspaper=The Milwaukee Journal |accessdate=1 March 2016}}
43. ^{{cite interview |url=http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/roho/ucb/text/seim_chuck.pdf |title=Charles Seim: The Bay Bridge Oral History Project |interviewer=Sam Redman |subject=Seim, Chuck |page=21 |date=2013 |publisher=The Bancroft Library, University of California |location=Berkeley |accessdate=6 February 2015 |quote=When it comes to the Richmond-San Rafael designed by Norman C. Raab, first of all, it zigzags because of the two alignments of the navigation channels. It goes up, and then it sags down, and then it goes up. The cardinal rule of aesthetics in a bridge is it has to soar. You can't sag it in the middle. The other is it connects from here to there as a straight line or as a curve line. You don't make an "S" out of it. Those violate both of those very strong principles. This engineer [Raab] was soundly criticized for creating this ugly bridge. Of course, his defense was, "I saved a million dollars by putting the sag in it." Which is probably true.}}
44. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20060901/NEWS/609019964 |title=With little fanfare... |date=1 September 2006 |author=Prado, Mark |newspaper=Marin Independent Journal |accessdate=26 February 2016}}
45. ^Interview with Chuck Seim (2013), p. 8 & 30. "Now, the twin spans, they were spanned by what we call a steel cantilever span. But the interesting thing is that these shipping channels were not parallel to one another. They angled."
46. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/bridge/rsr.html |title=Bridging the Bay: Bridging the Campus - Richmond-San Rafael |author= |date=22 December 1999 |website=UC Berkeley Library |accessdate=24 February 2016}}
47. ^Interview with Chuck Seim (2013), p. 20. "Of course, everybody criticized the truss bridge on the Richmond-San Rafael, that Raab designed and they said, 'We don't want an ugly truss here.' [...] Well, if you had to award the ugliest bridge in the world, I think the Richmond-San Rafael would certainly be in the running. If not the first one, then top three. It is an ugly bridge. But that's a story that maybe we shouldn't get into. It was driven by economics, and it was driven by the obstinance of this one engineer that I referred to. He wouldn't change. He then proposed a truss for the Hayward area, and everybody ssaid, 'No, we don't want that. It's an ugly bridge.' He said, 'Well, it's the most economical.'"
48. ^{{cite interview |url=http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4w1003s9&chunk.id=d0e11453 |title="The Father of Prestressed Concrete": Teaching Engineers, Bridging Rivers and Borders, 1931 to 1999 |subject=Lin, TY |subject-link=Tung-Yen Lin |interviewer=Eleanor Swent |chapter=VIII Developing Prestressed Concrete Technology: The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge: Misjudgment to Save Money |language=English |date=1999 |publisher=The Regents of the University of California |place=Berkeley |accessdate=24 February 2016 |quote=Lin: So, one architect asked [Wright], "What do you think of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge?" "I think it should be sabotaged!" He meant that it should be bombed, it's so ugly looking.}}
49. ^Interview with Chuck Seim (2013), pp. 8–10. "Everybody working on that bridge - I think it's safe to say all the higher-echelon engineers - were the same engineers that worked on the San Francisco Bay Bridge. I had a chance to work with engineers who actually worked on the San Francisco Bay Bridge, and I used to read about that when I was a kid."
50. ^Interview with Chuck Seim (2013), p. 30. "In 1956, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was opened. An interesting thing about that is that most of the senior engineers that worked on the Bay Bridge stayed over in San Francisco and worked on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, because they both used the same technology, with some minor variations."
51. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/Rich-SR/Rich-layout.pdf |title=Pier and Bent Layout: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (Sheet No. RS-224) |author= |date= |website=Caltrans |accessdate=22 February 2016 }}
52. ^¹²³⁴{{cite journal |url=http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1954_marapr.pdf |title=Pier Construction: Rapid Progress on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Project |pages=20–25; 32–33; 64 |author=Raab, Norman A. |date=March–April 1954 |volume=33 |number=3–4 |journal=California Highways and Public Works |publisher=California Department of Public Works |accessdate=18 February 2016 }}
53. ^¹{{cite journal |url=http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1954_julaug.pdf |title=Bridge Innovations: New Operation Facilities On Richmond-San Rafael Span |pages=14–15; 32–33 |author=Raab, Norman C. |volume=33 |number=7–8 |date=July–August 1954 |journal=California Highways and Public Works |publisher=California Department of Public Works |accessdate=18 February 2016 }}
54. ^{{cite web |url=http://goldengatetransit.org/schedules/current/route_40.php |title=Route 40 Basic Bus Route Effective December 13, 2015 |author= |date=13 December 2015 |website=Golden Gate Transit |accessdate=25 February 2015}}
55. ^{{cite web |url=http://goldengate.org/news/transit/route-42-elimination-travel-alternatives.php |title=GGT Routes 40 & 42 Merging - Service to Richmond BART Station Discontinued |author= |date=10 November 2015 |website=Golden Gate Transit |accessdate=25 February 2016}}
56. ^¹²{{Cite web|url=https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/howitworks/whereToUse.shtml#richmond|title=FasTrak|website=www.bayareafastrak.org|access-date=2019-02-07}}
57. ^{{cite web | title = Frequently Asked Toll Questions | publisher = Bay Area Toll Authority | date = 2010-06-01 | url = http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/faq.htm#2 | accessdate = 2010-06-29| archiveurl = https://www.webcitation.org/5tv1MQCqO | archivedate = 2010-11-01| deadurl=no}}
58. ^{{cite web | title = Toll Increase Information | publisher = Bay Area Toll Authority | date = 2010-06-01 | url =http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/ | accessdate = 2010-06-29| archiveurl = https://www.webcitation.org/5tv15npOZ | archivedate = 2010-11-01| deadurl=no}}
59. ^{{cite web|title=Toll Increase Information: Multi-Axle Vehicles |publisher=Bay Area Toll Authority |date=2012-07-01 |url=http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/multi-axle.htm |accessdate=2013-12-29 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131230234900/http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/multi-axle.htm |archivedate=December 30, 2013 }}
60. ^¹²{{cite journal |url=http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1956_julaug.pdf |title=Record Span New Crossing: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge About Ready for Traffic |pages=1–4; 22 |volume=35 |number=7–8 |author=Raab, Norman C. |date=July–August 1956 |journal=California Highways and Public Works |publisher=California Department of Public Works |accessdate=18 February 2016 }}
61. ^{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YftXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x_YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=753%2C986448 |title=Tight Pants Cause High Toll Request |author= |date=20 June 1956 |newspaper=Spokane Daily Chronicle |accessdate=18 February 2016 |agency=AP}}
62. ^Regional Measure 1 Toll Bridge Program. bata.mtc.ca.gov; Bay Area Toll Authority. {{webarchive |url=https://www.webcitation.org/5tv15npOE?url=http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/projects/rm1.htm |date=November 1, 2010 }}
63. ^{{cite news|first=John |last=Dutra |title=AB 1171 Assembly Bill – Chaptered |date=October 14, 2001 |publisher=California State Assembly |url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1171_bill_20011014_chaptered.html |accessdate=August 7, 2008 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5tv15npOL?url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1171_bill_20011014_chaptered.html |archivedate=November 1, 2010 |deadurl=no |df= }}
64. ^{{cite web|title=About MTC |publisher=Metropolitan Transportation Commission |date=October 15, 2009 |url=http://www.mtc.ca.gov/about_mtc/about.htm |accessdate=October 15, 2009 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5tv15npOg?url=http://www.mtc.ca.gov/about_mtc/about.htm |archivedate=November 1, 2010 |deadurl=no |df= }}
65. ^{{cite web |title=Frequently Asked Toll Questions |publisher=Bay Area Toll Authority |date=June 1, 2010 |url=http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/faq.htm#2 |accessdate=June 29, 2010 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5tv1MQCqO?url=http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tolls/faq.htm#2 |archivedate=November 1, 2010 |deadurl=no |df= }}
66. ^{{cite news | url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/3-hike-to-Bay-Area-tolls-appears-to-have-support-12972027.php | title=Regional Measure 3: Work on transportation improvements could start next year | first=Michael | last=Cabanatuan | publisher=SFGate.com | date=June 6, 2018}}
67. ^{{cite news | url=http://www.ktvu.com/news/bay-area-bridge-tolls-to-increase-one-dollar-in-january-except-golden-gate | title=Bay Area bridge tolls to increase one dollar in January, except Golden Gate | first=Christien | last=Kafton | publisher=KTVU | date=November 28, 2018}}
68. ^{{cite press release | url=https://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/tolls-seven-bay-area-bridges-set-rise-next-month | title=Tolls on Seven Bay Area Bridges Set to Rise Next Month | publisher=Metropolitan Transportation Commission | date=December 11, 2018 | accessdate=December 16, 2018}}
69. ^{{cite web |url=http://66.120.196.62/rsrbridge/ |title=Welcome to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project |author= |date=2004 |website=Caltrans |accessdate=1 March 2016 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040404101112/http://66.120.196.62/rsrbridge/ |archivedate=4 April 2004 |deadurl=yes}}
70. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-RAFAEL-Seismic-work-jolts-commute-2784147.php |title=SAN RAFAEL / Seismic work jolts commute / Retrofit on Richmond Bridge on schedule, but drivers fuming |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=2004-05-03 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=2013-09-29}}
71. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.gerwick.com/document.asp?DocumentID=3 |title=Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit |author=Vincent, John |date=September 1995 |website=Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. |accessdate=1 March 2016 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040429081357/http://www.gerwick.com/document.asp?DocumentID=3 |archivedate=29 April 2004 |deadurl=yes}}
72. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.gerwick.com/project-detail.asp?ProjectID=259 |title=Project Description: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge |author= |date=1998 |website=Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. |accessdate=1 March 2016 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040405132128/http://www.gerwick.com/project-detail.asp?ProjectID=259 |archivedate=5 April 2004 |deadurl=yes}}
73. ^{{cite web |url=http://66.120.196.62/rsrbridge/construction/default.asp |title=Construction |author= |date=2004 |website=Caltrans |accessdate=1 March 2016 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040405103107/http://66.120.196.62/rsrbridge/construction/default.asp |archivedate=4 April 2004 |deadurl=yes}}
74. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/Rich-SR/0438U4/docs/bidsummary.pdf |title=Bid Summary, Contract No. 04-0438U4 |author= |date=9 August 2000 |website=State of California Department of Transportation |accessdate=1 March 2016}}
75. ^{{cite California statute |year=2001 |chapter=907 |page=7396}} {{cite web |url=ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1171_bill_20011014_chaptered.html |title=Assembly Bill 1171 |publisher=California Legislative Information |format=PDF |access-date=20 November 2015}}
76. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://www.dot.ca.gov/baybridge/seismic_retrofit_program_reports/TBSRPSecondQuarterReportEndingJune302005.pdf |title=Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program Report, Second Quarter 2005 |author=California Department of Transportation| access-date=20 November 2015}}
77. ^{{cite web|last1=Rivera|first1=Renee|title=Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bike Path approved|url=https://bikeeastbay.org/news/richmond-san-rafael-bridge-bike-path-approved|website=bikeeastbay.org|publisher=East Bay Bicycle Coalition|accessdate=5 August 2015}}
78. ^{{cite news|last1=Prado|first1=Mark|title=Big changes planned for Richmond-San Rafael Bridge|url=http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20150211/big-changes-planned-for-richmond-san-rafael-bridge|accessdate=5 August 2015|work=Marin Independent Journal|date=11 February 2015}}
79. ^¹{{cite news|last1=Prado|first1=Mark|title=Third lane on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge open for business|url=https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/04/23/third-lane-on-richmond-san-rafael-bridge-open-for-business/|accessdate=3 May 2018|agency=East Bay Times|date=23 April 2018}}
80. ^{{cite news |url=https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SBS19630131.1.1 |title=Storm, Wind Lash Bay City |author= |agency=AP |date=31 January 1963 |newspaper=San Bernardino Sun |accessdate=16 April 2018}}
81. ^Man dies in recycling plant explosion, 27-10-2000, access date 03-07-2012
82. ^[https://www.sfgate.com/traffic/article/580-richmond-san-rafael-bridge-closed-concrete-13598563.php Falling concrete closes Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in both directions] 07-02-2019
83. ^Scene 34. Not Enough Experience. Magnum Force