CalBike Insider Archives

CalBike Insider: What Does It Mean When CalBike Opposes a Bill?

March 27, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

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.

CalBike Insider: From State Law to Local Implementation

February 19, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike’s work may seem removed from local efforts to build safer streets, but state laws have very real and direct — though sometimes invisible — effects on local infrastructure. In this Insider, we take a look at how state laws filter down to the local level and the real-world impacts of some laws CalBike helped pass.

Changing state law

Getting a bill through any legislative body has been compared to sausage-making. It’s a messy process, and what starts out as a strong bill can be weaker or even counterproductive by the time the legislative subcommittees get through with it. CalBike works with bill authors and other advocacy groups to influence the process and maintain language that preserves the original intent of the bill as much as possible.

Not all changes in committee are counter to a bill’s intent. Some may clarify confusing language, making it easier to implement. At times, a bill’s language could even become stronger. However, even if the final bill signed into law doesn’t have all the provisions CalBike would have liked at the outset, it can still make a significant difference.

For example, the Complete Streets Law signed by the governor gives Caltrans more leeway than we would have liked to avoid including biking and walking infrastructure in repair projects. But that doesn’t change the impact of the bill, which showed strong and broad support for streets that work for all modes of transportation. Caltrans is taking it seriously, and CalBike continues to engage with the agency’s implementation efforts.

Changes at the local level

A new law is only as effective as its implementation. A 2023 law allowing several cities to pilot automated speed enforcement has been slow to get started; San Francisco is just now installing its first speed cameras, which will become operational next month. It could be several years before it becomes clear what role automated speed enforcement can play in making our streets safer.

This is not uncommon. Local governments often need time to make implementation plans and develop new local regulations, if needed. Another example of this is the 2014 law CalBike sponsored that added separated, on-street bikeways to California’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD is a go-to reference for planning and public works departments, and many local governments were reluctant to install this protective bike infrastructure unless it was in the MUTCD.

For CalBike, passing the law wasn’t the end of our work. Although the law went into effect in 2015, we created a brochure to introduce protected bike lanes to local governments in 2016. In 2018, we conducted a webinar about why cities should include separated lanes when building on-street bikeways. We also advised on the development of the guidance produced by Caltrans, the Design Information Bulletin 89, which informs Caltrans and local agency staff on how to properly design this facility.

In the 10 years since the original law was passed, protected bikeways have become the gold standard for on-street bike infrastructure. It took time for local governments to understand the concept and incorporate it into their plans (like this recent draft City of San Diego Street Design Manual, which features protected bikeway design on page 94), but that statewide law has had a big impact.

Changing the way we think about our streets

Another reason new state laws can take time to filter down to the local level is that many new laws include stepped or delayed implementation schedules. For example, the Daylighting Saves Lives Law, which CalBike helped pass in 2023, had a two-step implementation. The law went into effect in 2024, but people couldn’t be ticketed for parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk until 2025.

At the beginning of this year, municipalities can ticket people parked too close to a crosswalk, whether the curb is painted red or not. However, local enforcement and ticketing are likely to vary among communities, and some drivers may be unaware of the new law. However, now that the law is in full effect, local governments are starting to paint red curbs and issue parking tickets. It may take time for leaving clear space for visibility around crosswalks to become common practice across California, but this law will save more lives each year as implementation grows.

CalBike Insider: Updating the MUTCD to Comply with New Law

February 4, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

If the headline didn’t lose you at “MUTCD,” welcome! CalBike often works deep in the weeds, sitting on advisory committees and wrangling with state agencies over policy changes that may seem minor or arcane but have significant impact on our safe biking and walking.

One example of this is an update to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. California’s MUTCD is akin to the Bible for state and local planners and public works departments. It lays out allowable road treatments and can frustrate bicycle advocates when it’s used as a reason not to implement the latest guidance on safe biking and walking infrastructure.

However slowly, the MUTCD does get updated with better practices, such as when CalBike passed a law legalizing protected bikeways. Before the 2014 law, few municipalities were willing to install physically separated bike lanes because they weren’t in the MUTCD and cities feared legal liability.

In 2024, CalBike supported AB 1216, which prohibits the installation of, as well as state funding for, Class III bikeways on high-speed streets. A Class III bikeway is a route featuring a shared lane for bike riders and car drivers, sometimes indicated with sharrow markings. The passage of that law triggered an update to the MUTCD.

As a member of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (known by the lovely acronym CWBTAC), CalBike is helping shape the language for new street design guidance that directs communities not to put shared lane markings on streets with speed limits greater than 30 mph. It’s a small thing and pretty technical. But we hope that removing the option to slap some sharrows in the roadway and call it a bikeway will force local governments and Caltrans to design better, safer routes for people who get around by bike.

CalBike Insider: Statewide Bike/Walk Advisory Committee Weighs in on Complete Streets

January 9, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike does a lot of high-profile advocacy, winning big improvements for active transportation such as the Complete Streets Law and the Daylighting Law. But we also spend a lot of time deep in the weeds, sitting on state advisory boards and committees that shape agency policies and the ways that new laws are implemented. Sometimes we’re helping develop the process for a new law we helped pass; in other cases, our administrative work influences policies for biking and walking separate from the legislative process.

Our agency work is never glamorous and can be frustrating at times because of the slow pace of change. But it’s as essential to moving California’s transportation future toward biking, walking, and transit as our legislative work. Here’s a look behind the curtain at a recent meeting of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (CWBTAC).

What is a technical advisory committee?

The CWBTAC is an advisory body to Caltrans, and includes representatives from statewide advocacy groups like CalBike, representatives from city and county governments and transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, consultants, and other state agencies. Membership is open periodically by application and includes geographic, topic area, and sector goals. Quarterly meetings are closed to the public.

CalBike has been a member of the CWBTAC since it was formed in 2018 and was on the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, which the CWBTAC replaced, before that. We communicate regularly with Caltrans administrators during committee meetings such as this and in one-on-one meetings. Representing the concerns and needs of the bicycling community to Caltrans officials has been one of CalBike’s core functions since our founding 30 years ago.

Caltrans workshops implementation of new Complete Streets law

The most recent CWBTAC meeting convened shortly before Thanksgiving, and the main topic on the agenda was Caltrans’ implementation of the recently passed Complete Streets Law, SB 960.

Caltrans presented an overview of the process to ensure the infrastructure needs of people who get around by biking, walking, or taking transit are considered as the agency plans new maintenance projects and outlined the types of public engagement that occur at each stage of the project development process. The meeting then went into breakout groups, during which time participants shared ideas on how Caltrans should implement the Complete Streets law (SB 960). CalBike shared ideas on outreach to bring voices from disadvantaged communities into the discussion and how to create a process that doesn’t allow the desires of car drivers to overrule the interests of vulnerable road users.

Advisory bodies like the CWBTAC provide an opportunity for direct engagement and conversation with Caltrans and other agency staff. These meetings are an opportunity for CalBike to share the bicyclist’s perspective with not only Caltrans but also the local, regional, and statewide agencies and stakeholders that participate.

We will continue to work on Complete Streets implementation, both in large discussion settings and smaller meetings with Caltrans staffers, in the year ahead. The legislative session is barely getting started, but CalBike is already hard at work to make state roadways safer for everyone.

CalBike Insider: California Poised to Mandate Secure Bicycle Parking

April 27, 2022/by Kevin Claxton

Last week, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty introduced a bill to require secure bicycle parking in all new residential buildings, and CalBike was there to testify in support.

AB 2863, the Bike Parking Bill, will require the Department of Housing and Community Development to create standards for bicycle parking in new residential buildings in the next regular update of their standards. It also requires the California Building Standards Commission to update its standards for parking in commercial buildings and specifies that the requirements must be independent of the number of vehicle parking spaces. That’s an essential consideration as more and more buildings are being built with few parking spaces or none at all, so local regulations that require bike parking in proportion to car parking are becoming unworkable. And as more Californians turn to the bicycle for healthy, low-cost, green transportation, the need for safe bike storage is critical.

While the Bike Parking Bill does not immediately impose a mandatory standard, it is the best bill about bike parking that the legislature has considered to date. Previous bike parking bills didn’t pass, in part, because they imposed a strict requirement for the number of parking spaces. The Bike Parking Bill adopts a better approach: By giving the appropriate government agency the responsibility to develop standards, it allows the agency to adopt flexible regulations that meet the needs of different kinds of housing. Also, agencies can adjust regulations in the future, as situations dictate, without an act of the legislature.

McCarty has handed the Bike Parking Bill to Assemblymember Lori Wilson, who will introduce it as it moves through the legislature. CalBike will continue to advocate for this essential measure.

Measures like this demonstrate why your support for CalBike is crucial. While it’s appropriate that the agency develop the standards, it’s vital for a stakeholder organization like the California Bicycle Coalition to stay involved. You can be sure that other stakeholders, who are more interested in reducing their costs than meeting residents’ needs for sustainable transportation, will be at the table. CalBike is the voice in Sacramento for Californians who care about biking. Once this bill passes, we will be there to make sure that housing developers don’t water down this essential regulation and that future construction in California provides bike parking that accommodates all types of bikes.

CalBike Insider: $2 billion for bikes in 2022

December 1, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

California has a current budget surplus of $31 billion. CalBike is advocating for the governor and legislature to put $2 billion of that surplus toward infrastructure projects that will make our communities safer and more inviting for biking and walking. We’re joined by our allies at Safe Routes Partnership, Transform, California Walks, Move LA, Planning and Conservation League, and Active SGV. That $2B would represent a one-time tenfold increase in funding for active transportation projects, but it will only touch the beginning of California’s need for infrastructure improvements.

The Active Transportation Program was created in 2013 by combining several state and federal funding sources into one account to support bike and pedestrian safety. Total funding was $134 million in 2013 ($160 million in today’s dollars), and the ATP had $238 million in 2020 (a 49% increase). Still, that amount does not come close to meeting the exploding demand for safer streets. The most recent round of ATP funding, for example, drew 453 applications requesting a total of $2.3 billion.

At a funding level of about $220 million each year, the Active Transportation Program is the largest single dedicated source of funding for bike and pedestrian safety in the country. Yet, for a state the size of California, with a transportation budget of $32 billion, it’s nowhere near enough to meet the need.

That’s why the $2 billion boost to active transportation is critical. Only 40 submitted proposals were funded in Cycle 5, representing less than 10% of potential projects. In the last cycle, projects had to score at least 92 points out of a possible 100 in the evaluation process to receive ATP money. Our recommendation for a $500 million augmentation to Cycle 5 ATP projects will allow the state to fund approximately 80 shovel-ready projects immediately. That would make almost all the proposals with applications scoring 86 points or above. CalBike has created a spreadsheet showing all 453 applications, sorted by their score, so you can see where a project from your community fits and if it might get funding.

Of course, this one-time boost is just the beginning. With our allies, we are demanding a doubling of the Active Transportation Program to $500 million annually and a new program to build connected bikeway networks to create 15-minute neighborhoods where everyone’s typical daily needs are just a safe and comfortable 15-minute bike ride away. We’ll need your support to get it done. Please sign the petition.

E-bike incentive program budget request

June 17, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

CalBike, joined by dozens of allied organizations across the state, submitted a letter of support for Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath’s request for a budget allocation to implement the proposed e-bike incentive program. The letter and its accompanying fact sheet express the consensus of a diversity of organizations that a $10 million investment in helping Californians get e-bikes is a great way to advance very many goals: climate change reduction, social equity, health and happiness, local economic sustainability, and traffic safety.

Dozens of organizations signed on, including statewide, regional, and local advocates for environmental sustainability, equity, and transportation justice; as well as influential public officials and agencies.

CalBike Insider: Street Safety, Budget Surplus, and the Death of a Good Idea

May 21, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

A great deal of the work your CalBike staff does in Sacramento is behind the scenes. We attend technical advisory committee meetings, advise senior (and junior) staff on best practices, and nudge state agencies to advance in our direction: toward better communities where more people can experience the healthful joy of bicycling, with equity, prosperity, and inclusion as top priorities. This week we’ve been reflecting on advances at Caltrans, advocating for active transportation allocations from the budget surplus, and mourning the speed camera bill, which died in committee.

Some of our work is necessarily private, but here’s what we can tell you.

Caltrans is Making Progress

Changing a huge bureaucracy is often difficult. It’s been a slow process to transform Caltrans from an agency that safeguards the interests of cars to one that responds to our current challenges, and there is much more work still to be done.

However, under the leadership of Toks Omishakin, Caltrans has impressed us with structural changes. One great example is the creation of a high-level Division of Safety Programs and the appointment of longtime bicycle advocate Rachel Carpenter as its Chief Safety Officer. Carpenter previously worked on Livable Streets at SFMTA and she’s a regular bike commuter. The division will bring additional focus to the goal of zero traffic deaths. This should have influence over other offices within Caltrans which impact safety, such as Traffic Operations and the Division of Design.

Budget surplus provides an opportunity to fund active transportation projects

California’s May Budget Revision showed a $76 billion surplus, with $38 billion in discretionary spending. The competition for that money is fierce. It’s the source of the $600 checks that most Californians will receive, and a welcome boost to early childhood education and afterschool programs. It’s also a great source for infrastructure funding, especially since it’s a one-time boost. The competitive statewide portion of the Active Transportation Program is funded annually at about $220 million. In 2020, California communities submitted applications for $2.3 billion of projects. It desperately needs an infusion of cash.

Yet active transportation advocates had mixed reactions to a proposal from a cohort of California Transportation Commissioners with ties to the road-building industry. The commissioners asked for an incredible $2 billion infusion into the ATP. However, their intention was to derail an earlier proposal suggested by the California State Transportation Agency in its draft “Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure” that called for an ongoing increase in the ATP by taking a little bit from other programs that mostly fund highways.

Advocates promote an alternate proposal for the budget surplus

CalBike and our allies made an alternative proposal to the Budget Committees, seeking $1 billion for the ATP and an additional $1 billion for other active transportation projects, such as the 15-minute neighborhoods and bicycle highways envisioned by AB 1147.

The governor’s May revision proposed a $500 million augmentation to the ATP and $500 million for regions to implement the goals of AB 1147, although the governor’s proposal is not as visionary as that bill imagines.

This week, CalBike is advocating to win our original request of $1 billion for the ATP and $1 billion for other active transportation projects. The coalition of road builders has joined us in asking for $1 billion for the ATP, but we parted ways on the additional funding for the programs that expand highway capacity that the road builders wanted.

Whatever happens, it looks like the ATP will get a huge infusion of funds. By law, half of the funds enter the statewide competition and half are distributed to local agencies. The state’s portion of the funding will help to implement scores of projects that were unfunded in last year’s round. Also, CalBike will continue to advocate for a longer-term solution to the underfunding of the ATP. The governor’s proposed expenditures on transportation in the next fiscal year are $32.6 billion. Unfortunately, much of this is for highways and other subsidies for driving that make bicycling and walking harder. The ATP does not stand a chance to achieve its goals unless the balance of funding shifts.

CalBike endorses speed camera bill, but the Appropriations Committee does not

AB 550 proposed a pilot project to test the efficacy of speed cameras in several California cities. The bill would have required local agencies to develop guidelines for the program with strict limitations that ensured the system would not increase inequities in California. Fines would have to be low, and only charged at speeds 10 mph or more over the speed limit. Fines could not have additional fees tacked on. The car owner would get the fine, like a parking ticket. Police would not be allowed to be involved. The bill also put privacy controls in place.

The bill’s author, Assembly Member David Chiu, did such a good job addressing these equity concerns that we were excited to support it. Camera speed enforcement reduces crashes and saves lives, and it might be the only acceptable solution to scofflaw speeders on certain streets.

However, the Appropriations Committee killed the bill at its May 20 hearing. The committee didn’t offer any clues for their reason for killing this bill, but the demise of AB 550 is a loss for safe streets. CalBike supports the concept of speed safety systems. If another bill is introduced that addresses equity concerns as comprehensively as AB 550, we’ll support it.