Featured Archives - Page 2 of 19

CTC Backs Doomed Highway Project

July 3, 2025/by Laura McCamy

Meetings of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) usually fly under the radar with few, if any, members of the public aware they’re happening, much less showing up to comment. But a raft of grants proposed for contested highway projects, including the Highway 99 interchange in Fresno and State Route 37 widening, drew opposition from transportation advocates and attention in the press.

CalBike Executive Director Kendra Ramsey joined a number of other advocates in attending the June 26, 2025, CTC meeting. She testified against funding to add lanes to SR 37, which is already subject to flooding and will be permanently underwater, due to sea level rise, by the middle of the century.

Where California invests its transportation funds is crucial

As our climate grows hotter and our roads and freeways become ever more congested and unmanageable, we need new solutions. We need to invest in projects such as those proposed in the Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, which would add connected bike networks to state transportation plans, helping to make biking a viable transportation option for people of all ages and abilities. We need to increase funding for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), which supports biking and walking projects across California. We need to invest in transportation infrastructure that provides options outside of a car, not trapping people behind a steering wheel.

Yet Caltrans and our elected leaders are moving in the wrong direction. Governor Gavin Newsom stripped $400 million from the ATP last year, leaving the program able to fund only 13 projects in its last cycle. Despite a promise to restore the funds, the budget deal just approved by the legislature and signed by the governor doesn’t give back the missing funds. And Caltrans continues to promote projects that don’t offer long-term solutions to our transportation problems but do add to the carbon burden in our atmosphere.

California pays lip service to addressing climate change in numerous policies, but its actions — especially its budget allocations — turn those policies into hollow promises. It’s time for our state to invest in active transportation and fostering neighborhoods where walking, biking, and taking transit are comfortable and easy ways to get around.

Moving toward invest/divest

Leaders consistently use budget shortfalls as an excuse for underfunding sustainable transportation, but we have the money. We simply need to divest from climate-killing projects that move us backward instead of forward. CalBike’s Invest/Divest campaign seeks to redirect funding from reckless highway building and use that money to give Californians true transportation choices.

The advocates didn’t win this round at the CTC. Predictably, the commission voted to allocate funds for SR 37 and other projects opposed by advocates. But this is a long campaign that won’t be won or lost in one hearing. We succeeded in shedding light on CTC and Caltrans operations, which depend on a lack of public scrutiny to keep building highways like it’s 1979. CalBike will continue to be vigilant, turn up with our allies, testify at hearings, and let our state transportation leadership know they will be held to account for their decisions.

CalBike Insider: Following Up on the Complete Streets Bill

June 26, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

CalBike does a lot of behind-the-scenes work to encourage state agencies to develop better policies and to follow up on the implementation of bills passed in prior years. One law we’re following closely is SB 960, the Complete Streets Bill. CalBike worked tirelessly for almost a decade to pass a Complete Streets requirement on state roads; now that it’s law, we continue to work with Caltrans to ensure that it’s properly implemented.

The devil is in the details

At our meeting with Caltrans on June 4, 2025, we were encouraged by the staff’s willingness to work with us and the progress made on several fronts in improving the agency’s Complete Streets implementation.

However, there are two areas where we’re not seeing much movement, so we followed up with a letter to California State Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin and Caltrans leadership outlining our concerns.

Transit priority

One of the requirements in the 2024 Complete Streets Bill is that Caltrans prioritize projects and project elements that improve the speed and efficiency of public transit. Transit is a vital element of California’s sustainable transportation transformation, providing connections that allow people biking and walking to go farther.

We are concerned that Caltrans doesn’t yet have a director’s policy or design guidance for transit priority facilities. These are essential first steps needed for planners and engineers to include transit features in upcoming Caltrans projects. We urge the agency to move quickly to put these elements in place.

Encroachment permits

One of the roadblocks to safe biking and walking infrastructure is the agonizingly slow pace at which Caltrans approves encroachment permits. Local communities need these permits from Caltrans when a project on local streets crosses or overlaps with a state-controlled right-of-way. Many state routes serve as local streets, and freeway on and off ramps dot urban landscapes, often creating safety hazards for people using active transportation. Slow permitting can hold up projects or discourage local governments from planning infrastructure upgrades that touch Caltrans roads.

The Complete Streets Bill calls for faster permitting for Complete Streets projects that intersect state routes. So far, Caltrans has not taken the necessary steps to implement this high-priority element of the new law. We hope to see the agency act with urgency to put staff in place to make this happen in the very near future.

SB 960 Implementation Follow-Up Download

What is the 85th Percentile Rule?

June 23, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

And why it belongs in the dustbin of transportation history.

In 2021, CalBike helped pass the Slower Speeds Save Lives Bill, AB 43, authored by former California Assemblymember (and current U.S. Representative) Laura Friedman. The bill gives communities limited relief from the 85th percentile rule, allowing them more leeway to lower speed limits. This year, CalBike supports AB 1014 (Rogers), which will extend the ability to set lower speed limits on state-controlled roadways. CalBike’s Executive Director, Kendra Ramsey, is testifying in support of AB 1014 at the Senate Transportation Committee.

The history of the 85th percentile rule

When a local government wants to lower the speed limit on a particular street, it has to do a speed study to determine how fast drivers are going on that street. Under the 85th percentile rule, the new speed limit must be set within 5 mph of the speed that 85% of drivers travel at or below.

As with most things that are no longer working well, the 85th percentile rule for setting speed limits arose to serve a genuine need. In rural areas, towns would sometimes set speed traps, lowering the speed limits within town boundaries much lower than those of the surrounding area. Towns raised revenue by handing out speeding tickets to unsuspecting motorists.

The 85th percentile rule was never designed to determine safe speeds in urban areas, yet it is now widely applied for that purpose.

There has been a concerted effort across the country to change the way speed limits are set.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and more recently, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) have all called for moving away from using the 85th percentile as the basis for setting speed limits.

In 2018, former Assemblymember Friedman initiated a bill to revise the ingrained 85th percentile rule, which was eventually transformed into the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force, in which the body firmly focused on the rule. This led to the passage of AB 43 in 2021.

How does the 85th percentile rule work?

The 85th percentile rule is easiest to explain with an example. If the current speed limit on a street is 35 mph and a speed study shows that 85% of drivers are driving at or below 37 mph, the 85th percentile rule would dictate that the speed limit remain unchanged because it fits driver behavior. Even if the community had determined that 35 mph was too fast for safety, the local government’s hands would be tied.

In some cases, the rule leads to higher speed limits. For example, if the speed study showed that 85% of drivers in that 35 mph zone were going 41 mph or slower, the local government would have to raise the speed limit to 40 mph.

What AB 43 did to speed limits

Under AB 43, communities can reduce speeds in business zones without a speed study. In cases where a speed study is still required, California jurisdictions have more flexibility to lower speed limits. San Francisco has helpful resources on this topic, and UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, along with ARTC Logistics, developed a California Safe Speeds Toolkit to help local governments set safer speed limits.

For example, if a speed study showed that 85% of drivers traveled up to 34 mph in a 35 mph zone, under the old rule, the city would need to keep the posted speed at 35 mph. Under AB 43, the city has the option to round down and reduce the speed limit to 30 mph.

In addition, communities can reduce speeds by another 5 mph after an engineering study in areas with high volumes of bike or pedestrian traffic or in areas that are designated as safety corridors.

Why California needs lower speed limits on state routes

Speed is a factor in at least 25% of traffic fatalities in California. Even at the relatively low speeds in urban areas, collisions can be fatal, particularly for seniors and children. As the cars, trucks, and SUVs on the road have gotten heavier and their grilles higher, injuries to vulnerable road users hit by cars, even at slow speeds, are more likely to be life-threatening.

Some of the most dangerous streets in many California cities and towns are state routes. These local highways turn into city streets while still funneling fast-moving traffic past homes and schools. AB 1014 would extend the same speed limit setting parameters to these state routes. Caltrans would be empowered to set prima facie speed limits of 25 or 20 mph in certain areas. It would also have the option to round down instead of up from the 85th percentile speed and to reduce speeds by another 5 mph in safety corridors and near facilities used by people biking and walking.

Of course, speed limits can’t prevent all reckless and dangerous driving. We need improved infrastructure for that. But measures like AB 43 and AB 1014 are an excellent start and may provide an impetus for better infrastructure if speed safety targets aren’t met.

CalBike’s Legislative Agenda at the Halfway Point

June 11, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

On June 6, bills with any chance of becoming law this year left their house of origin. Senate bills had to pass a vote of the full Senate and move to Assembly committees for review, and vice versa. We’re happy to report that our two priority bills made it past the midway point, though one may face a tougher road in the Senate. Here’s the status of all the bills we’re supporting and following in the 2025 session.

Fire service bill doesn’t move forward

CalBike rarely opposes bills, but we had to speak out against AB 612 (Rogers), which would have increased fire department authority over bikeway planning decisions. Too often, fire departments oppose new bikeways because they claim they will hinder access in case of a fire. Somehow, cars parked along the curb don’t create an obstacle for the fire department.

We appreciated the discussions that happened around this bill. And we’re encouraged by the efforts of Mike Wilson, who helped launch an innovative program in Berkeley to leverage the fire service’s expertise in prevention to take a preventative approach to street trauma. It’s a win-win for street safety advocates and fire departments, whose EMS staff are first on the scene to aid most traffic violence victims.

Bills we’re supporting

This year is the first year of California’s two-year legislative session, which means that some bills will become two-year bills. A two-year bill is put on pause this year and revived in January 2026, with a deadline to move forward before it’s declared DOA. The two-year option can be helpful if a bill needs more time or revisions to gather the support needed to pass. One of the 10 bills CalBike is supporting this year became a two-year bill, one died in the Assembly, and the rest have passed their first house. Here’s the status.

School Streets Bill (AB 382, Berman): This much-needed measure would lower the speed limit around schools from 25 mph to 20 mph. Even a few miles per hour can make a big difference in the severity of injuries when a car hits a pedestrian, and children are particularly vulnerable. This law will give drivers more time to see children and stop; it’s an excellent way to move California closer to Vision Zero.

Red Light Camera Reform (AB 720, Ashby): Automated enforcement for car drivers running red lights is legal throughout California but problematic, which has led some municipalities to abandon red light cameras. This bill seeks to reform the way red light cameras are regulated and tickets are issued to make the system more equitable and effective.

Intelligent Speed Assist for Dangerous Drivers (AB 981, Gipson): One of CalBike’s sponsored bills last year, Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 961, would have phased in intelligent speed assist (ISA) for all new vehicles. It passed the legislature, but the governor vetoed it. AB 981, which has become a two-year bill, is currently written as a pilot in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern Counties. Drivers convicted of reckless driving would be required to install active ISA, much the way those convicted of drunk driving can be mandated to have ignition interlock devices that prevent them from driving drunk. Active ISA prevents a vehicle from going above the posted speed. We’re interested to see how this develops. The EU now requires ISA on all new vehicles, and we hope it will become a standard safety feature here in the near future.

Slower State Routes (AB 1014, Rogers): In 2021, CalBike helped pass AB 43, which gave California municipalities more flexibility to lower speed limits than the 85th percentile rule would have allowed. This bill extends the same option to Caltrans on state routes that aren’t freeways. Since these routes often run through neighborhoods — bringing dangerous, speeding traffic — this bill could represent a significant step toward safer streets.

License Plate Covers (AB 1085, Stefani): This bill would make manufacturing, selling, or using a cover that obscures the license plate number of a car illegal in California.

Caltrans Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (AB 1132, Schiavo): This bill would have required Caltrans to identify what makes communities resilient to climate-caused transportation disruptions. It died in the suspense file.

Remove Bikeway Roadblocks Bill (SB 71, Wiener): Senator Wiener authored a bill during the pandemic giving active transportation projects a temporary exemption from CEQA, California’s environmental review law. This bill would make the CEQA exemption permanent.

Sustainable Transportation Permitting (SB 445, Wiener): This bill speeds up the permitting and construction of sustainable transportation projects, including bikeways. It will also allow communities to fix dangerous road segments more quickly, thus reducing the heavy toll of traffic violence.

Safe Crossings Save Lives (SB 671, Cervantes): This bill seeks to make traffic signals more pedestrian-friendly. To achieve this, it includes a requirement that California inventory existing pedestrian signals on state-controlled roadways to understand the existing condition. This will help direct funding and maintenance where they are most needed.

E-bike bills

With six bills relating to e-bike regulation introduced this year, they need their own category. Unfortunately, the bill we felt had the most promise died in the Assembly. The other five all passed their first house.

The one that didn’t make it

A bill to clarify the classification of some of the vehicles illegally sold as e-bikes (SB 455, Blakespear) fell victim to the dreaded suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The measure would have reclassified “e-bikes” with higher motor-assisted speeds than the 28 mph allowed under California law. It would have created a new class of motorized bikes, low-power mopeds, and moved some of these bikes into the current moped or motorcycle categories. This would have triggered registration and licensing requirements and prohibited dealers from selling them to underage riders. There was some pushback from the DMV, which would have a slew of new vehicles to register, and the motorcycle industry, which resisted having these bikes classified as electric motorcycles.

We think this measure had a lot of promise, and we’re grateful to Senator Catherine Blakespear for bringing stakeholders together to discuss this issue. CalBike will be convening stakeholders from a range of communities to discuss the future of e-bike regulation in the coming months, and we hope to pick up where this discussion left off.

E-bike bills moving forward

Two of the five remaining e-bike bills relate to classification issues, one places an age limit on e-bike sales, and two increase the penalties for e-bike violations. CalBike is watching these bills; we haven’t taken a position for or against them.

E-Bike Application Prohibition (AB 545, Davies): This measure prohibits the selling of applications that modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle. This bill is an extension of a bill last year (AB 1774, Dixon), which prohibited the selling of speed-enhancing devices.

E-Bike Confiscation (AB 875, Muratsuchi): This bill would clarify that police can confiscate the illegal e-motorcycles that are often sold as e-bikes, something some local jurisdictions are already doing. While these bikes aren’t street-legal and are subject to law enforcement, we don’t think the police need another pretext to stop and harass young people of color.

Penalizing E-Bikes (AB 544, Davies): E-bikes are required to have a red rear reflector or flashing light when operated at night, just like all bikes. This bill would require e-bikes to have this reflector or light during all hours. Current law requires minors to wear helmets on bikes or face a $25 fine. This bill allows a diversion if the minor takes the DMV’s online e-bike safety class and proves they have a helmet.

Class 3 E-Bike Sales Prohibition (AB 965, Dixon): This bill prohibits the sale of a new or used Class 3 e-bike to anyone under 16. Class 3 bikes use pedal assist only, with a top speed of 28 mph, and are already subject to more limitations than Class 1 and 2 bikes, which have a top speed of 20 mph. No one under 16 is allowed to operate a Class 3 bike, and all riders must wear helmets. Given those requirements, this measure seems superfluous, but that’s a theme in the e-bike legislation this year.

The eMoto Bill (SB 586, Jones): This bill creates a new eMoto classification, which would cover some of the vehicles currently sold as e-bikes that don’t fit the classification system. The devices classified as eMotos wouldn’t be street legal; they would be allowed for off-road use only.

Bills we’re watching

CalBike is watching 11 bills. We haven’t taken a position on these bills, but we’re monitoring their progress through the legislature because they could have an impact on active transportation.

In addition to the six e-bike bills listed above, we’re watching:

State Building Standards (AB 306, Schultz/Rivas): This bill would freeze state, county, and city building codes in California for six years. It passed the Assembly and is in the Senate.
Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 (AB 1243, Addis): This bill would establish the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Program to be administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency to require fossil fuel polluters to pay their fair share of the damage caused by greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. It has become a two-year bill.
Regional Housing Needs and Transportation Plans (AB 1275, Elhawary): This bill would harmonize the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy processes to ensure the needs of both existing populations and projected populations are met, and to ensure local governments have plans for sufficient housing in climate-friendly locations near transit, jobs, and services. It passed the Assembly and is in the Senate.
San Francisco Bay Area Local Revenue Measure (SB 63, Wiener/Arreguín): This bill would authorize the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to propose a revenue measure to the voters in its jurisdiction to fund the operation, expansion, and transformation of the San Francisco Bay Area’s public transportation system, as well as other transportation improvements. It passed the Senate and is in the Assembly.
Study for Road and Safety Improvements (SB 78, Seyarto): This bill would require Caltrans to conduct a study to identify certain locations in the state highway system with regard to vehicle collisions, and projects that could improve road safety at each of those locations. It passed the Senate and is in the Assembly.

To stay up to date on the latest developments with all the bike-related legislation, check CalBike’s Legislative Watch page. Subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on the most crucial bills for active transportation and periodic reassessments of the status of all the bills we’re supporting or watching.

CalBike Works with Caltrans to Move Complete Streets Forward

June 11, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

In 2024, with help from our allies and thousands of CalBike supporters, we passed the Complete Streets Bill, SB 960, requiring Caltrans to add or upgrade facilities for people biking and walking when they repair state routes that serve those travel modes. Passing the bill was just the first step; as we’ve seen with the rollout of California’s new daylighting law, lack of implementation, based on so-called lack of funding, can get in the way of the effectiveness of new safety regulations. So, CalBike is working with Caltrans to ensure the agency takes active transportation safety seriously and better implements Complete Streets on its highways.

Sitting down with Caltrans

Last week, we met with Caltrans’ leadership, including Acting Complete Streets Lead Advisor Susan Lindsay and other key executives, to discuss progress toward implementing SB 960.

Every project in Caltrans’ State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) that isn’t on a limited-access freeway should be evaluated for active transportation and transit infrastructure needs. In fact, many state routes run through neighborhoods and serve as local streets where people walk, bike, and take the bus.

Caltrans outlined some plans to implement its Complete Streets policy during projects on those routes and comply with SB 960. These include transparency: Caltrans will post justifications for recommended Complete Streets elements included or excluded from projects online. Caltrans has a form to document this for each project, but it hasn’t been available to the public. In 2023 and 2024, CalBike had to make public records requests to obtain the project records we reviewed for our Incomplete Streets report. We commend Caltrans for taking this step.

There will also be more accountability within Caltrans. Rather than district personnel making the final decision about new bikeways or sidewalks, leading to large variations in implementation among Caltrans districts, high-level staff from headquarters will review cases where district staff have not included recommended Complete Streets elements in SHOPP projects. This formalization of the exception to the Complete Streets policy is meant to narrow allowable exceptions and streamline application across districts. Caltrans will also report on this to the California Transportation Commission, which oversees funding for the program.

Caltrans reporting

In addition to these reporting and transparency steps, as well as several other new policies, Caltrans is undertaking a review of the 2026 SHOPP projects that had recommended Complete Streets elements. This is similar to the analysis CalBike did of the 2024 projects, and the agency has promised to share its findings with us. When CalBike released our Incomplete Streets report, we had statistics that Caltrans hadn’t compiled internally, and we’re glad to see the agency take up the practice.

CalBike plans to keep reviewing and analyzing Caltrans SHOPP project documents to double-check its progress on Complete Streets. Caltrans has offered quarterly meetings with CalBike to share information and input on the process to provide Complete Streets for all users.

Working with Caltrans has always been part of CalBike’s mission. Our agency work is less visible than our legislative advocacy, but it’s no less important. So, when you see a new crosswalk or protected bikeway on a Caltrans-maintained road in your neighborhood, you can thank the Complete Streets Bill and CalBike’s advocacy for Caltrans to step up since 2008, as well as tireless advocacy from local partners, that brings the changes to the street level.

California’s Budget Prioritizes Freeway Expansion Over Safe Streets

June 9, 2025/by Laura McCamy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 9, 2025

Contact: Jared Sanchez, jared@calbike.org, (714)262-0921

Sacramento — CalBike and other advocates had a modest ask from California’s nearly $20 billion 2025 transportation budget: give back the $400 million that was stripped from the Active Transportation Program (ATP) in 2024, as the legislature promised to do in last year’s budget. Yet the legislature’s version, released today, includes no additional funding for the ATP.

Last year’s cutbacks limited the program to funding just 13 projects for safe biking and walking infrastructure across the state. The missing funds could immediately jumpstart 30 local infrastructure projects that applied for funding and are ready to break ground.

In tight budget years like 2025, cuts aren’t distributed evenly. Programs backed by powerful industries, such as money to build new highway lanes, receive billions despite their negative impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, while the Active Transportation Program, which saves lives and provides climate solutions, is left begging for crumbs.

“The Active Transportation Program is the victim of its own success, continuously oversubscribed. Yet the governor and some of our lawmakers fail to recognize its value,” says CalBike Policy Director Jared Sanchez. “The disregard for biking and walking at the state level undercuts state climate policy and makes it harder for local governments to meet residents’ demands for safer streets.”

Improvements that reduce traffic fatalities and make it safer and more appealing to walk and bike are very popular in California communities. The number of projects looking for ATP funding grows every cycle, and the number of high-scoring projects eligible for funding increases.

The demand for local active transportation infrastructure, which has been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities for people using all transportation modes and moves California closer to its climate goals, continues to grow. We should increase the budget for the ATP, yet lawmakers have slashed its budget, nearly leading the California Transportation Commission to cancel the most recent funding cycle due to a lack of funds.

Climate change isn’t something we can deal with down the road; it’s here, now. Safer streets shouldn’t be a “someday when we have extra cash” project, but an urgent necessity to prevent more children and other vulnerable road users from dying needlessly. Our budget priorities show our values. This year, California has sided with polluters over people.

This Is What a Bike Highway Could Look Like

June 9, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

The Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, passed the Assembly by a wide margin, showing strong support for protected, connected bikeway networks. CalBike is sponsoring this bill, authored by Assemblymember Steve Bennett, which will create a pilot project pathway to create bike highway networks in two regions.

The networks could be planned using existing segments of fully separated bike paths and on-street protected bikeways, as well as new facilities. Creating a regional network that allows riders to seamlessly get where they need to go without facing missing links or dangerous intersections is the magic of the bike highways plan. This project could significantly increase bicycle mode share and become a model that can be replicated throughout California.

Although we don’t have complete bike highway networks yet, there are several existing bikeways used for long-distance bike commuting. We spoke to some of the people using one of these bikeways in Southern California.

“AB 954 is our chance to link the enormous stack of bicycle benefits with well-connected, longer-range networks. In Burbank, for instance, major bike paths including the Chandler, the San Fernando, and the Channel Bikeways, do not connect to each other or to the Los Angeles River Bike Path. Without safe, direct connections, these human-powered corridors remain isolated and ineffective. Bike highways are the way to weld segments together into something truly useful. By linking these networks, we unlock a complete system where biking becomes not just possible, but a life-affirming celebration for all.” — Kreigh Hample, Project Coordinator for Walk Bike Burbank and the Burbank Advisory Council on Disabilities

Southern California Trails

The San Gabriel River Trail is a 35.4-mile multi-use path. The LA County website lists mountain biking as one of the uses and seems to view the trail from Seal Beach to Azusa as recreational. We reached out to users via Reddit and found at least one bike rider who uses it for commuting as well as recreational rides.

“The SGRT is one of the few places where cyclists can truly bike without ever encountering the crazy drivers of LA,” Justin Williams told CalBike. “I use the path to commute to work and on the weekends for fun. It is one of the only ways to cross the 405 without on/off ramps… PCH gets sketchy, and I wouldn’t recommend it to my friends.”

The trail passes through numerous cities, including Norwalk and El Monte, and could provide the basis for a bike highway network if connected with local bike routes.

An anonymous commenter rides the San Gabriel River Trail but prefers the Santa Ana River Trail farther south for recreational rides because of poor pavement in some sections of the SGRT. The San Gabriel River Trail is shared with horseback riders, and some sections are gravel rather than asphalt.

The Santa Ana River Trail is an ambitious project to build 110 miles of trail from the San Bernardino National Forest to the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach. This trail, which started construction in 2005 and is 60% complete, will ultimately pass through San Bernardino and Santa Ana. It will end at the Pacific Coast Highway, a few miles south of Beach Boulevard, a state route that CalBike evaluated as part of our Incomplete Streets report.

While these two trails are largely intended for recreational bike riding, they could provide the spine for connected, protected bike highway networks, allowing people to travel by bike between and within Southern California communities. There are numerous trails like this throughout California. With your help, we’ll pass the Bike Highways Bill and experience the positive impact of truly regional bikeway transportation networks.

CalBike Insider: Design Guidance on Class IV Bikeways

June 9, 2025/by Laura McCamy

Caltrans issues Design Information Bulletins (DIBs) that set the parameters for specific types of facilities on the state highway network. DIB-89 provides guidance on how to build Class IV bikeways. Class IV lanes are on-street bikeways separated from car traffic by some type of physical barrier. CalBike’s analysis of Caltrans data found that, although protected bikeways have been legal in California since 2015, Caltrans added almost no Class IV lane miles between 2018 and 2023.

Caltrans first issued DIB-89 in 2018 and updated it in 2022. It’s now preparing to do another update of this design guidance. Later this month, the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (CWBTAC), which advises Caltrans on matters related to active transportation, will have an opportunity to provide feedback on DIB-89 to inform revision later this year. Kendra Ramsey, CalBike’s executive director, sits on the CWBTAC, so we will be able to comment. We are working on our own comments, but want our supporters to have an opportunity to weigh in as well.

DIB-89 is important because it will govern how Caltrans implements Class IV bikeways, which are the safest on-street bikeways and proven to reduce injuries for all road users. Often, local agencies also look to Caltrans guidance to inform how they construct facilities on local roads. The design guidance could encourage or discourage the use of Class IV lanes, depending on how it’s written.
This is very deep in the weeds, but we don’t think that only traffic engineers should weigh in on something that could have a profound impact on how we all get around. We’ve put the current version of DIB-89 into our Google Drive and opened it for comments. We invite you to read it and add comments by June 23 so we can read them before the meeting. CalBike wants to bring as much feedback as possible to the CWBTAC meeting at the end of this month, so we are happy to hear what you think should be changed.

Bakersfield Convenes Grand Jury to Investigate Bike Lanes

June 3, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

On May 27, 2025, the Kern County Grand Jury released a preliminary report titled The Proliferation of Bike Lanes: Whose Road Is It? The grand jury had been asked to “examine the impact of bike lanes in Bakersfield.” It returned findings that questioned the value of installing bike lanes in Bakersfield and accused the consulting firm that developed the city’s bike plan of being “biased toward bicycles.”

This is a questionable use of the grand jury process to circumvent California’s climate goals for the transportation sector and the rightful role of local government officials to make transportation plans for their city. Here’s what we know about the grand jury report and what’s next.

The Civil Grand Jury

Every county in California convenes an annual civil grand jury for the express purpose of investigating local government. Unlike federal grand juries, which generally determine whether there’s enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, California’s Civil Grand Juries may investigate noncriminal matters.

According to Kern County’s website, a grand jury can review complaints about “inefficiencies and misconduct in government.” Based on the report, bike lanes appear to fall into the inefficiency bucket.

The complaint process is confidential, so the report doesn’t state who requested that the grand jury investigate the “proliferation of bike lanes” in Bakersfield. Citizens can request civil grand jury investigations, as can elected officials or government staffers.

Findings: “conflict of interest” and cost/benefit analysis

The findings of the four-page report include benefits of biking, such as a 53% reduction in injuries after bike lanes are installed, the half ton of CO2 that switching from a car to a bike takes out of the air annually, and the fact that bike lanes are cheaper to install and maintain than car lanes.

The negative findings can be summarized as:

It’s too hot to bike in Bakersfield in the summer.
The air is too polluted in the region, so everyone should stay inside a car.
H Street in Bakersfield can’t afford to lose a traffic lane to accommodate a bike lane because nearby streets are too congested.
The city should have made sure that the consulting firm it hired to create its Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Plan didn’t have a “predetermined goal of moving many people from cars to bicycles.”

The last point appears to be directed at Alta Planning + Design, which prepared Bakersfield’s most recent bike and pedestrian plan in 2020. The grand jury seems to have found that specializing in active transportation planning is a disqualification from developing such a plan.

The issue with H Street is oddly specific in a report that otherwise more broadly questions the decision to add infrastructure that makes it safer to ride a bike in Bakersfield.

The complaint about air quality is self-contradictory. The solution to polluted air might be to ride a bike instead of, for example, driving a car and…polluting the air. And, while heat is certainly a factor in the comfort of bike riding, the grand jury seems to assume that everyone riding a bike in Bakersfield could drive in an air-conditioned car if they chose. The jury didn’t consider the fact that some Bakersfield residents don’t own or can’t afford a car, so making biking safer is critical for their mobility. It also doesn’t factor in the rising number of e-bikes, which can make it easier to bike in hot weather by doing some of the work. It also doesn’t consider that many people ride bicycles in other communities that experience summer heat.

The civil grand jury requests that the City of Bakersfield, by July 1, 2025, amend its RFP materials to “better identify potential conflicts or biases of proposals.” We hope this will apply to any road construction or maintenance contracts as well. Those shouldn’t go to companies that favor infrastructure for motor vehicles.

Starting September 1, 2025, the grand jury wants Bakersfield to conduct automobile and bicycle counts before constructing new bikeways. This sounds like a way to support the argument that “no one bikes here” to avoid putting a bike lane on a roadway that’s too dangerous for most bike riders until the bike lane is installed. It’s a circular argument that has no good outcome for people who want or need to get around by bike.

The final recommendation is to develop a cost/benefit model for bike lanes by September 1, 2025. Presumably, this will calculate the greenhouse gas savings, which the report deemed too small to justify bike lanes. The grand jury obviously didn’t realize that this model already exists: Caltrans has developed a life-cycle cost/benefit analysis model that can be applied to any transportation project.

There seems to be a bias in this report against the utility of bike lanes. It’s a familiar stance, one every bike advocate has witnessed at civic meetings when new bike infrastructure is proposed. The civil grand jury appears to have made its findings and recommendations without considering all the data relevant to active transportation planning decisions. That’s not surprising; they’re probably not urban planning experts.

What happens next

The Bakersfield City Council has 90 days to submit a response on the findings and recommendations in the report to the presiding judge of the Kern County Superior Court and the foreperson of the civil grand jury. The Bakersfield Public Works Department has 60 days to submit responses to selected findings and all three recommendations.

It’s a stretch to argue that decisions about creating and implementing a bike plan (something required to access certain types of transportation funding) are not within the purview of the Bakersfield City Council or Public Works Department, even if some residents disagree with the outcome. Grand juries are designed to look for fraud, malfeasance, and mismanagement. None of that seems to be present here.

We hope the city council and public works department will stand up for safe streets for all Bakersfield residents. If you live in Bakersfield, let your city council member know you expect a strong rebuttal to the biased report on bike lanes. Here’s the letter CalBike sent to Bakersfield’s mayor, vice mayor, and city council.

Grand Jury Letter to Bakersfield City Council Download

Quick-Build Designs Improve Street Safety

May 29, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

Photo: Anne Thomas riding the “mousehole” bike lane through underpass on State Route 273.

Quick-build methods are a cost-effective way to reconfigure streets for greater safety for people walking and biking. Placing parked cars or planter boxes between moving cars and bike riders is less expensive to design and install than a raised curb. Quick-build safety measures are easier to alter as well, allowing street design to evolve on the ground, guided by user experience. For these reasons, many California communities now use quick-build methods to add active transportation improvements.

Caltrans hasn’t yet standardized quick-build for streets that are state-managed, so CalBike is sponsoring AB 891, Assemblymember Rick Zbur’s bill to create a quick-build pilot at Caltrans. Stories from our local partners of quick-build projects and needs on state routes show how Caltrans can deploy quick-build for effective, fast safety upgrades.

Quick decisions in Caltrans District 2

Anne Thomas from Shasta Living Streets shared positive experiences working with Caltrans District 2. For example, after working with her organization and the community members it organized in support, the agency was able to make a quick decision to change the capital pavement maintenance project and drop a car lane to add a Class II bike lane in a project on State Route 273. Although the first implementation of this bikeway was just paint, the decision to drop the car lane and add a bike lane helped create space for a protected two-way bikeway 10 years later in front of the new Shasta Bike Depot.

In partnership with Shasta Living Streets, Caltrans District 2 helped gain statewide approval to install the first parklet on a state highway. The parklet was built using quick-build methods. The installation was a huge success, even winning design awards.

Thomas’s group held a workshop and used data to raise awareness and generate community support for the urgent need to add a bikeway in a tunnel under railroad tracks, giving access to people walking and biking. District 2 staff approved the project and built it using quick-build methods. Thomas reports that, although this isn’t a perfect safety feature, people love it and use it. Community member Mindy Graves said, “I love the new Hwy 273 adjacent bike lane; as a resident on the west side of Redding, it’s been a great new connection to downtown.”

The experiences of Shasta Living Streets demonstrate the power of quick-build to create safe spaces for people biking and walking on Caltrans routes. Thomas credits District 2 for embracing the process. She’s seen quick-build projects that prove their worth turn into more permanent installations in time, highlighting the value of an iterative design process. The Quick-Build Bill will lend legitimacy to this well-tested method, allowing Caltrans districts to use it more widely.

The need for quick-build is real

Warren Wells from the Marin County Bicycle Coalition noted that a maintenance project on Highway 1 goes through a section of Tam Valley identified as a high priority to have a Class I separated path. But finding the resources and funding to build this using traditional materials could put off a much-needed facility, while a quick-build installation would create safer infrastructure in a spot where people are already walking and biking on the side of the highway.

Bike East Bay’s approach has been to collaborate on demonstration projects to show Caltrans staff and local governments what’s possible on state routes that run through their cities. Robert Prinz tells us that, in 2023, the group worked with Caltrans staff and the Cities of San Leandro and Berkeley on small quick-builds for E 14th Street and San Pablo Avenue, both of which are state routes.

@CitySanLeandro’s E 14th protected bikeway pop-up demo is starting soon, 2-5pm today between Bancroft &150th Ave. Come on out for food, music, & info about the #EastBayGreenway project from Oakland to S Hayward! Stop by our Bike East Bay table for freebies! pic.twitter.com/GplxolOH14
— Bike East Bay (@BikeEastBay) June 17, 2023

Prinz hopes the San Leandro quick-build will show what’s possible for future segments of an upcoming corridor project called the East Bay Greenway. The Berkeley project would have used a two-way cycle track to connect two segments of a neighborhood route that jogs as it crosses San Pablo Avenue. The City of Berkeley hasn’t yet had the resources to execute the project, but Prinz hopes it will in the future.

In the absence of Caltrans leadership, communities have been left on their own if they want to add active transportation infrastructure on state routes that double as local streets. In CalBike’s review of Caltrans project documents last year, we even saw instances where Caltrans declined to devote any of its extensive repair budget to safety upgrades for people biking and walking and suggested cities needed to find the funds elsewhere.

We believe state road repair funds should serve the needs of all road users, not just people who drive. The Complete Streets Bill we passed last year puts the weight of law behind the mandate for Caltrans to allocate resources more equitably. We hope the Quick-Build Bill will give the agency flexibility to do more for pedestrian and bicyclist safety and implement fixes more quickly.

Help us pass the Quick-Build Bill. Email your assemblymember today.