SB 569, the Preserving Safe Bikeways bill from Senator Catherine Blakespear, will not move forward this year, but there is an important takeaway from the bill’s journey through the Legislature. The Legislature included within a separate budget bill the main provision in SB 569 that a bikeway constructed with General Fund dollars should not be removed without ensuring the resulting facility provides a safe and accessible environment for bicyclists. The budget bill limits the applicability to the Santa Fe Drive project in Encinitas, which sparked the idea for SB 569 in the first place. In doing so, the underlying principle behind the bill has now been validated by the Legislature: public investment in safe bikeways should have the same presumption of durability we expect from other roadway investments, especially if we expect people to shift how they travel.
The concept underlying SB 569 is bigger than protecting any particular strip of pavement. At CalBike, we see it as protecting the integrity of public investment. A bikeway is part of a network, so removing one segment can cause damage well beyond that block: a comfortable route to a school can suddenly have a dangerous gap, a connection to transit can become inaccessible to many riders, and a network that took years to assemble is often only as strong as its weakest link. When faced with such gaps, many would-be bike riders find the risk intolerable and opt into more car trips. California asks a lot of communities before a bikeway gets built. Projects go through planning processes, engineering review, public hearings, funding, environmental analysis, and years of advocacy. Taxpayer dollars are committed because the state and local governments have determined that the project serves a public purpose well beyond the ribbon cutting and opening day photo opportunities. A future city council should be able to improve a street, respond to new conditions as they emerge, and redesign infrastructure when necessary. However, removing a piece of a publicly funded safe transportation network rises to a different level and should receive commensurate public scrutiny.
This premise survived the legislative process as long as it did because it makes sense: when Californians invest public money in safer streets, those investments should have staying power. While this year’s legislative success only applies to Santa Fe Drive in Encinitas, the broader principle that public investment in safer streets must be upheld stands.
The response we heard from CalBike supporters and like-minded organizations has reinforced the potential here as well. For years, bicycle advocates have understandably concentrated on getting projects built. California still has enormous work ahead of us on that front, and we will need far more funding for safe walking and biking infrastructure. We will increasingly need to protect these nascent systems as they grow into the connected networks that communities have been promised.
We are grateful to Senator Blakespear for authoring SB 569 and continuing to push this idea forward, and to everyone who contacted legislators, signed on in support, and helped demonstrate that protecting California’s safe streets investments matters.
SB 569 will not become law this year, but we don’t think this is the end of the idea. As we begin looking toward 2027, preserving safe bikeways could be a natural component of a broader legislative effort: a collection of practical, bike-friendly policies that move California toward safer, more connected communities.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/589PM.jpg17805394Andrew Wrighthttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngAndrew Wright2026-09-02 15:06:462026-09-02 15:07:25The Presumption of Durability, and the Future of SB 569
CalBike-backed consumer protection bill draws a clear line between legal e-bikes and high-powered electric devices marketed as e-bikes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO — The California Bicycle Coalition today celebrated the final legislative passage of SB 1167, authored by Senator Catherine Blakespear and co-sponsored by CalBike, PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone. The bill now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature.
SB 1167 strengthens consumer protections by making clear what can legally be sold and marketed as an electric bicycle in California. The legislation protects legitimate Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes while requiring high-powered electric devices that fall outside those definitions to be accurately identified and disclosed to consumers.
“Consumers should know exactly what they’re buying, and products should be honestly represented,” Ramsey said. “SB 1167 draws a clear line around legal e-bikes and protects their role as one of California’s most promising transportation options. In a rapidly changing market, we should address the devices causing confusion rather than pile new restrictions onto people riding legal e-bikes.”
California law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle with operable pedals and a motor of no more than 750 watts, with additional speed limits governing Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes. But the rapidly changing electric mobility market has made those distinctions increasingly difficult for consumers to navigate.
High-powered devices capable of exceeding legal e-bike power and speed limits are increasingly advertised using e-bike terminology, including in marketing aimed at young people. That confusion can leave families unaware that the device they are purchasing falls beyond California’s e-bike rules.
SB 1167 addresses that problem by:
Protecting California’s legal e-bike definitions, including the 750-watt power limit and established Class 1, 2, and 3 speed limits.
Strengthening truthful marketing requirements so devices that fall outside the legal definition cannot be advertised, labeled, or sold as e-bikes.
Improving labeling and disclosure requirements so consumers have clearer information about the type of electric device they are purchasing.
Strengthening battery and electrical safety requirements for high-powered electric devices.
Improving crash and injury data by requiring incident reports to record available classification and labeling information, helping California better understand which types of devices are involved.
SB 1167 previously passed the Senate 37-0 and advanced through the Assembly Transportation Committee and Assembly Appropriations Committee without a single opposing vote.
CalBike urges Governor Newsom to sign SB 1167 into law.
About the California Bicycle Coalition
The California Bicycle Coalition advocates for equitable, inclusive, and prosperous communities where bicycling helps enable all Californians to lead healthy and joyful lives.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/SB1167Web.png17805394Andrew Wrighthttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngAndrew Wright2026-08-28 15:00:442026-08-28 15:02:00Press Release: SB 1167 Clears California Legislature, Heads to Governor Newsom
Bill would bolster California’s premier safe streets program by improving transit connections, stretching limited funding further, and holding delayed projects accountable
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO — The California Bicycle Coalition today celebrated the full legislative approval of AB 2168, authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and sponsored by CalBike, sending the bill to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature.
AB 2168 strengthens California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP), the state’s primary source of dedicated funding for walking and biking infrastructure, by sharpening how projects are chosen, funded and delivered.
“California communities are lining up with worthy projects to make streets safer and give people better ways to get around, but the Active Transportation Program has nowhere near enough funding to meet the demand of qualified, worthy projects in the pipeline,” said Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of CalBike. “AB 2168 doesn’t solve that funding gap, but it does help California get more from every dollar we invest.”
AB 2168 would strengthen the ATP by:
Expanding and modernizing the program’s focus on safe walking and biking connections to public transportation
Encouraging larger and more connected improvements by aligning ATP project corridors with State Transportation Improvement Program funding
Improve accountability through progressive penalties for agencies that repeatedly fail to use awarded ATP funds in a timely manner
The legislation is indicative of a rising consensus that California must make its existing transportation dollars work together. AB 2168 has drawn support from active transportation, environmental, safety, and community organizations across California, as well as the California Big City Mayors Coalition.
CalBike urges Governor Newsom to sign AB 2168 into law.
About the California Bicycle Coalition
The California Bicycle Coalition advocates for equitable, inclusive, and prosperous communities where bicycling helps enable all Californians to lead healthy and joyful lives.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2168togov.jpg17805394Andrew Wrighthttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngAndrew Wright2026-08-28 09:55:492026-08-28 10:06:32Press Release: Bill to Strengthen Walking and Biking Programs, AB 2168, Headed to Governor’s Desk
The World Cup arrives in Los Angeles this week as both a spectacle and stress test. For a few weeks, the region will be asked to do what it has often promised but rarely delivered at scale: move people efficiently without surrendering the city to traffic. AB 2168 matters because it recognizes a simple truth hiding in plain sight — and not just for these rare mega events, but for everyday life in Southern California. Big transit investments need active transportation connections to work and make mode shift not just desirable but irresistible. Sidewalks, crossings, bike routes, and safe station access are not decorative. They are the connective tissue of a functioning transportation system.
One example of what the Active Transportation Program can make possible is already open on Slauson Avenue. The Rail-to-Rail Active Transportation Corridor is a 5.5-mile walking, biking, and rolling path through South Los Angeles and Inglewood. It connects communities near the Metro K Line Fairview Heights Station, the J Line Slauson Station, and the A Line Slauson Station. It also links to 17 Metro bus lines, three DASH lines, and five Metro Bike Share stations.
Old rail corridor before the Metro Rail to Rail project.
This is what the Active Transportation Program is for. A former rail right-of-way that sat neglected for decades is now a public space with trees, lighting, seating, safer crossings, bike share, stormwater infrastructure, and room to move without a car. Metro says the $166 million project includes 472 new trees, bioswales, bioretention planters, and safety improvements along and across the Slauson corridor.
On an ordinary morning, the project makes the case more plainly than any policy memo could, with students and families alike making use of the facilities and the myriad connections. A corridor once treated as leftover space has become useful, safe, green, and alive. That is the glory of ATP. At its best, it turns abstract state goals into concrete neighborhood change that improves safety and quality of life.
Rail to Rail Path on Slauson Ave in South Los Angeles
Rail-to-Rail also shows why the program needs AB 2168
The project was a success, but it was not simple. Streetsblog reported that the project was more than a dozen years in the making, aided by a $15 million federal TIGER grant and an $8.326 million ATP grant in 2015. It took layered funding and years of persistence and local coordination, but ultimately a project this obviously useful should not require an act of civic endurance. When ATP funding is this limited, every dollar has to compound. A safe crossing should complete a route to transit. A bikeway should extend a real network. A sidewalk project should unlock access to a bus stop, school, clinic, or grocery store. The state should prioritize projects that make the surrounding transportation system more useful.
AB 2168 would make a good program sharper. The bill would modernize the ATP’s goals to appropriately emphasize better access to public transit; update “safe routes to transit” to include station areas, planned transit, transit corridors, including in underserved or rural areas; and ask the project proponents to consider how ATP dollars can be paired with other transportation funds for larger, network-level improvements. It would also encourage the California Transportation Commission to enforce penalties when applicants fail to use previously awarded ATP funds in a timely way, while accounting for factors outside an applicant’s control.
That is the right lesson from Rail-to-Rail: connect the pieces, prioritize the corridors with the greatest public benefit, and get the money out the door. AB 2168, sponsored by CalBike, is how we will compound the investment of the ATP.
Spur off of Rail to Rail path
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ATPRailHead.jpg21555394Andrew Wrighthttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngAndrew Wright2026-06-11 12:06:162026-06-11 14:29:47Rail-to-Rail Shows What ATP Can Do
Every two years, CalBike gathers bike advocates, transportation planners, government staffers, and more from around the state and globe at the California Bicycle Summit to exchange ideas and shape best practices for safer streets. In 2026, the Summit will return to Sacramento on April 23 and 24. Attendees will also have the opportunity to join CalBike on Wednesday, April 22, for a rare bicycle-focused optional lobby day in our state’s capitol.
Early bird registration for the 2026 Summit will open on November 1, 2025. We’ll also issue a call for workshop proposals later this fall. Opportunities for scholarships and sponsorships will also be available.
A historic venue
The 2026 Summit will be held at the Tsakopoulos Library Galleria in downtown Sacramento. In addition to several spaces for breakout sessions and networking, attendees will enjoy the Library Galliera’s expansive five-story atrium for keynote speeches and plenaries.
The central downtown location allows for a short, three-block walk to the Capitol Mall for participants in our optional pre-Summit Lobby Day. We will also enjoy easy access to nearby bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for mobile sessions on foot and by bike.
Two days of inspiring plenaries and breakout sessions
The Summit will include two plenary sessions and numerous breakouts on topics ranging from design, planning, and policy to infrastructure and activism. We’ll hear from state agency staffers, elected leaders, advocates, bike industry representatives, and more. The breakout sessions generate inspiring discussions, create new connections, and offer actionable resources that attendees can take home to their communities and organizations.
Bike tours and cultural events
No California Bicycle Summit would be complete without bike rides. In San Diego in 2024, we offered several biking and walking sessions led by our local hosts to show off the infrastructure and history of the area.
We’ll also host a social event where attendees can meet up with friends old and new.
Lobby day
Our Sacramento location allows us to host an optional Lobby Day the day before the Summit. Participants will gather in the late morning for a training session on a set of key campaign issues provided by CalBike staff. We’ll break for lunch, then visit assemblymembers, senators, and staff in the afternoon.
A lobby day gives us the chance to show our representatives in Sacramento the power of the movement for active transportation. We’ll talk with them about ongoing challenges, such as active transportation funding, as well as bike-friendly bills in the 2026 session.
On August 20, CalBike held its latest online Summit Session: Bike Highways: Creating a Path to the Future of Bicycling. Panelists included two staffers from Assemblymember Steve Bennett’s office, Arwen Chenery and Atticus Reyes. Bennett authored the Bike Highway Bill, which CalBike is sponsoring. We also heard from Mauricio Hernandez of Alta Planning + Design, and, joining from Bogotá, Colombia, Lorena Romero of BiciActiva.
The Summit Sessions are a way to continue the discussions started at our biennial California Bicycle Summit throughout the year, and the online format allows us to bring in voices from across the U.S. and the world.
Watch the full webinar.
Bike highways are happening in California
Chenery and Reyes shared the journey of the Bike Highway Bill this year, as it got watered down from a pilot in two regions to a planning recommendation because of budget concerns. Bennett plans to introduce legislation next year to move forward with a specific bike highway in his district, spanning cities from Santa Paula to Ventura. The Santa Paula Branch Line Trail follows a railroad right-of-way, and a fully connected bike highway along the route would connect residents in lower-income communities with opportunities for education and jobs. Parts of the route are already built; Bennett hopes to get state help to close the gaps and create an intercity bike route.
Bike highways are already happening in California. Participants called out several of them:
Vine Trail in Napa is nearly finished and stretches 47 miles from Vallejo to Calistoga.
The SMART train in Sonoma and Marin right-of-way includes a multi-use path parallel to the train for most of the route, also known as the Great Redwood Trail.
CV Link, a 40-mile bikeway in the Coachella Valley, is partially open.
Design principles for bike highways
Hernandez shared some design best practices for bike highways, a topic the highly engaged attendees were very interested in. He outlined principles for bike highway design:
Providing direct routes between regional destinations
Primarily separated and dedicated bike facilities
Allowing for higher-speed travel
Low-effort routes with minimal elevation changes and limited friction at intersections
Increasing mobility by giving people fast routes between regional destinations and connecting with local bike routes
He noted that, while the facilities are generally designed for bike riders traveling around 18 mph, bike highways can also accommodate slower users, with minimum speeds around 7.5 mph. Hernandez led attendees through more design specifics; you can view his presentation below. Even people walking are often allowed on bike highways, but they are designed to prioritize bikes and limit the number of people walking.
The slides below and the recording contain a wealth of practical and technical information Hernandez shared.
Romero shared the history of Bogotá’s bike highways, called ciclorutas, the connection to the city’s famous Ciclovia, and the effect of connected, protected bikeways on biking in the city. She emphasized the importance of culture, sharing photos of existing bicycle infrastructure from 10 years ago, when BiciActiva was formed, with cars and trucks parked in them.
Romero painted a picture of persistence, working with local governments, and persuading neighborhoods to get on board with new bike facilities. The change in the perception of bicycling is a critical component of the shift that has made Bogotá one of the cycling capitals of the world.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Bike-Highway-Denmark.jpg414621Kendra Ramseyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKendra Ramsey2025-08-27 18:47:572025-08-27 18:47:59New Directions for Bike Highways
Twopeople on bikes were killed in Bakersfield last week, not by the 100-degree heat but by cars.
In a city where a Kern County Civil Grand Jury claimed bike lanes are a “waste of money” because it’s too hot to ride, we showed the reality. On a typically balmy Central Valley August afternoon, dozens of riders gathered at Dagny’s Coffee for the “Bakersfield Beats the Heat” ride. We rode through the city together and ended at City Hall to deliver a simple, urgent message to the Bakersfield City Council:
We can’t change the sun. But the city can change the streets.
Calling for safe infrastructure
The grand jury’s report ignored the obvious: safer street designs save lives. When people are told that the heat is the biggest barrier to bicycling in Bakersfield, it sends a dangerous message that nothing can be done. Our ride showed that Bakersfield riders are ready to bike in any weather if the streets are safe. Riders, community leaders, and even Bakersfield City Councilmembers Bob Smith and Eric Arias joined us to call for real investment in bike infrastructure.
While portions of Kern County and Bakersfield do have newly installed bike infrastructure, it is largely disjointed with varying degrees of protection that leaves even experienced riders nervous. Participants at the ride shared how certain roads leave families feeling that they are risking their lives by bicycling, which should be a simple and enjoyable way to travel to school. Grizzly Cycles co-owner Kevin Talley posted recently on Instagram about some of the best bike lanes in the area and how they disappear completely, leading to some of the most dangerous areas in Bakersfield.
As CalBike Executive Director Kendra Ramsey said, “We want to draw attention to the fact that we need more safe bike infrastructure everywhere, including Bakersfield.”
Within 24 hours of our ride to City Hall, news broke of another person killed while biking in Bakersfield. It was a grim reminder that the campaign for safe bike infrastructure is not abstract. Every day of delay, lives are lost. Bakersfield, like cities across California, needs to move quickly to build bikeways that save lives without the roadblocks the grand jury tried to throw in front of active transportation infrastructure.
The solutions are within reach: protected bike lanes, traffic calming, and Complete Streets policies that put people ahead of speed. Bakersfield riders are ready. City leaders need to meet that urgency, not bow to the whim of a misguided grand jury.
Thank you
This powerful ride would not have been possible without our incredible partners. Thank you to our host Dagny’s Coffee and our friends at Bike Jam, Critical Mass Bakersfield, Bike Bakersfield, and Grizzly Cycles for riding with us and demanding safer streets.
After some delay, Caltrans recently released its draft Director’s Transit Policy, as required by the Complete Streets Law, SB 960, which CalBike helped pass in 2024. This internal policy is similar in form and function to DP-37, the Director’s Policy for Complete Streets, released in 2021.
As we know from DP-37, these policies are a major commitment on paper, but implementation can be lackluster, and Caltrans often balks at actually committing state transportation funds to alternative modes of mobility (walking, biking, transit, etc.). Internal director’s policies are a great first step, but to actually move the behemoth of Caltrans will take dedicated follow-up to ensure the greener infrastructure is being built. The first step is reviewing the draft policy and providing public comment; CalBike is working on that.
Seeking feedback on transit priority policies on state routes
The Caltrans Director’s Transit Policy will serve as a high-level guide that outlines the department’s commitment to supporting public transit on the state highway system. The policy encourages flexible, context-sensitive solutions to better connect and improve transit options for people of all ages and abilities. Where feasible, Caltrans will integrate public transit features within highway projects to strengthen transit networks across the state. To put the policy into action, Caltrans is also developing an implementation plan with specific steps and strategies. This plan will be informed by input from partners and stakeholders and is expected to be released in summer 2026.
Caltrans is currently seeking public feedback on the draft policy. Comments are due Monday, August 18, 2025. We encourage our members to pay attention to this policy so that it can be substantively used to advance more transit options on the state highway system. Caltrans is also having a workshop on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m., for the public to engage directly. Register here to attend.
Transit struggles
The fate of public transit continues to be a significant political and policy issue, as advocates attempt to secure more funds for transit in the state budget. Despite stopgap funding measures, transit is still not sustainably funded and receives a small amount of the total transportation budget.
Since the pandemic, many transit operators have been struggling to cover operating costs as they work to reclaim ridership. In 2023, SB 125 established the Transit Transformation Task Force led by the California State Transportation Agency to develop policy recommendations to grow transit ridership, improve the transit experience, and address long-term operational needs. This task force continues to meet to develop its final recommendations.
Without transit, California’s urban centers would be nearly impassible, with gridlocked freeways and local streets and more traffic carnage for vulnerable road users. CalBike supports robust transit systems, which are a vital component of safe streets for everyone.
Getting bikeways, crosswalks, or other Complete Streets elements into a Caltrans project can be challenging. Convincing Caltrans to alter a previously approved project to add bikeways is an even bigger lift, but local advocates in the East Bay did just that. We spoke with Robert Prinz, Bike East Bay’s advocacy director, and Drew Dara-Abrams, who sits on the City of Alameda Transportation Commission, about what worked to get Caltrans to change its plans.
The project: SR 61 from San Leandro to Alameda
The project, approved in the 2020 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), would repave State Route 61 from Davis Street in San Leandro, where it’s named Doolittle Drive with a 45-50 mph speed limit through Oakland, and across a bridge to become Otis Drive in Alameda, then move over to Encinal Avenue, bisecting the island city.
The most cost-effective time to build new bikeways is during repaving or repair work. CalBike’s Complete Streets bills all called for including Complete Streets in SHOPP projects. Yet getting Caltrans to take the infrastructure needs of people biking and walking seriously when planning projects that impact local streets has been a challenge. CalBike’s Incomplete Streets Report highlighted some of the excuses the agency has used to shortchange active transportation. With the passage of SB 960, the Complete Streets Bill, we are optimistic that Caltrans will do better on future projects.
But that doesn’t solve the problem of SHOPP projects approved in the past, some of which are only now being constructed. With SR 61, advocates faced the challenge of getting present-day Caltrans to honor Complete Streets obligations in a project initiated by past Caltrans. Here’s how they did it.
San Leandro to Oakland: Bike East Bay
Bike East Bay’s Robert Prinz worked mainly on the San Leandro and Oakland segments of the project, while local advocates in Alameda took the lead on the segment running through that city. The Project Initiation Document (PID), completed in 2020, failed to reference local bike plans from Oakland and San Leandro calling for protected bikeways on Doolittle Drive, even though the bike plans predated the PID. Bike East Bay pointed this out to Caltrans; Prinz has email threads going back to 2020. It took until 2024 for Caltrans to agree to reconsider the plan.
This segment covers a gap in the Bay Trail, a biking and walking trail that is envisioned to one day provide an unbroken route around the San Francisco Bay. While a future Bay Trail segment is planned to connect to Alameda, a protected bikeway on Doolittle closes a “gap between where one part of the Bay Trail ends and another begins,” Prinz said, noting that there’s no room for a Class I separated path in this area, so a Class IV protected bikeway is critical.
Prinz noted that some SHOPP projects do a good job with active transportation infrastructure, but the process could use more transparency. “We’ve had some good SHOPP projects funded, and it’s just a mystery as to why,” he said, citing a $40 million Complete Streets project in Union City and Fremont that he didn’t know was in the pipeline.
The breakthrough for Prinz was getting Caltrans to come to a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee he chairs on Oakland’s Bike/Ped Advisory Commission. It was hard for Caltrans staffers to refuse — their office is just two blocks from OakDOT’s. “Later we learned that Oakland DOT staff had been saying the same thing to Caltrans,” he said, noting that “ultimately I think it was Caltrans hearing from a lot of different partners” that got them to add a bikeway to the plan.
Prinz also cited the local bike plans as essential to the process with Caltrans. “Plans matter,” he said. “Very often, plans get overruled, but it does still help if you can point to something in one or more adopted plans to back up your requests.” He added, “Individual design details are important, and I wish we could spend more time working on that.” Making sure the bikeway is usable and “not just a line on a map,” he said, is just as important as the bikeway class, noting that some of Oakland’s bike lanes have had to be upgraded multiple times as design standards change.
He also cited the value of having more pools of advocates when working on a cross-jurisdictional project like this one. He hopes to see more advocates looking across borders and joining forces to work on projects that span multiple cities because “most people don’t bike in only one city.”
Alameda: Drew Dara-Abrams
Drew Dara-Abrams describes the four-lane state route that cuts across Alameda as running next to a city park, an elementary school, and houses with minimal setbacks. It’s the kind of roadway where cities like Alameda have consistently added bulbouts and other traffic calming features.
Not so with the Caltrans project. “Caltrans is stuck in the past of auto throughput, auto throughput, auto throughput,” he said. “Compared with all the design aspects we can expect to be part of a process for locally controlled roads, it’s just a black box.” When he first reached out to Caltrans to ask why project plans didn’t reflect statewide Complete Streets policies adopted in 2021, district staff said certain project documents were filed internally in 2019 and therefore avoided all subsequent requirements — including policies requiring sign-off on Complete Streets reviews by their district leadership.
Photos of Otis Drive in Alameda courtesy of Drew Dara-Abrams.
Like Prinz, Dara-Abrams also found that getting Caltrans staff to a public meeting was crucial. Holding a City of Alameda Transportation Commission meeting on the project “enabled residents to write in and attend and speak,” he said. “That really brought some light to the project.” They got 40 pages of emailed comments, including a letter from the principal of the neighboring elementary school. Public awareness and input didn’t move Caltrans, but it moved local leaders to meet with Caltrans staff, which was an important part of the process.
Dara-Abrams began writing about the project on his blog in 2023 and describes his advocacy as “pingponging back and forth between different groups and local leaders, which helped elevate this and make the local Caltrans district care at a leadership level.” Involving Caltrans leadership was crucial. “It turned out city staff and Caltrans staff had been going back and forth about the project for years,” he said. “The impetus for change has to come from the leadership level to give them permission to do things that might take a little more time or a little more budget.” With public scrutiny, Caltrans could no longer ignore local staff.
He said getting to know local staff was crucial because they know what projects are coming up. He’s learned from them and given himself an education in reading complex Caltrans and CTC documents.
In the short run, the changes make Caltrans staffers’ jobs harder, Dara-Abrams says, but “in the long run, this is in Caltrans’ interest — getting these details right.”
CalBike: Support from the statewide bike coalition
While local advocates took the lead in working with Caltrans on the SR 61 project, CalBike played a supporting role. We wrote letters of support and helped open lines of communication with Caltrans staff, while continuing to put pressure on district and headquarters regarding their CS policies and SB 960, which was signed into law during this time.
Hearing a similar message from a number of organizations let Caltrans know that people were paying attention and helped elevate the message up the chain of command to key decision-makers. This included an official response letter from then-District 4 Caltrans Director Dina El-Tawansy, who has since been promoted to Caltrans director at headquarters in Sacramento.
“The work Robert and Drew did on this project shows what’s possible if you’re persistent in working with Caltrans,” said Jared Sanchez, CalBike policy director. “I hope to have the opportunity to support more local advocates in finding the right levers to apply pressure to improve local projects.”
Results and takeaways
For both segments of the project, the advocates didn’t get everything they wanted. On Doolittle Drive, the bike facility won’t be very wide and doesn’t provide separation as robust as many other new East Bay bikeways. But, Prinz said, “It’s all iterative. We want Caltrans staff to get more experience with this kind of stuff, and we’ll get them to beef it up at some point.” And, once complete, this will be one of the longest Class IV bikeways in Oakland, and the only one east of Fruitvale Avenue.
In the Alameda segment, there will be small but targeted additions of pedestrian refuge islands and curb extensions at popular intersections, which fell short of the lane reductions local advocates wanted. But they got a promise from Caltrans District 4 to study a road diet and potentially implement lane reductions. That project is expected to get programmed into the 2028 SHOPP with construction in 2032, moving at the normal, glacial pace of Caltrans projects. CalBike’s Quick-Build Bill could provide more momentum, especially for projects that address safety hazards for vulnerable road users. The bill would allow Caltrans districts to use quick-build methods, when warranted, to swiftly address dangerous roadways.
“The fact that Caltrans was willing to update their plans at all is progress,” Prinz said. “It’s been a long process, but thanks, Caltrans, for listening.”
Key takeaways from this project:
Take your concerns to district leadership, and also reach out to staff at Caltrans headquarters and the California Transportation Commission, which provides funding for SHOPP projects.
Hold public meetings with Caltrans staffers present to hear comments and answer questions.
Ask Caltrans staff for project initiation documents, traffic analyses, and engineering plans. Use these materials to ask targeted questions and propose specific improvements.
Be persistent. Working with Caltrans is a long-term project.
Find your allies. Work with city staffers, elected officials, other advocacy groups, and people who live in adjacent cities or neighborhoods toward your shared goal of safer streets and connected bike routes.
CalBike continues to work at the state level to implement better policies on our state-controlled streets. Those policies pave the way for more transparency at Caltrans and a greater role for local communities in shaping the roads that run through their neighborhoods.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/SR-61-bike-riders.jpg14752617Laura McCamyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngLaura McCamy2025-07-23 02:06:102025-07-23 02:06:11Adding Bikeways to State Routes: Two Local Advocates Share Strategies for Change
