The Latest Archives

How South Bay Cities Enforce Car Dependence by Design

October 16, 2025/by Andrew Wright

The Week Without Driving seeks to highlight that nearly a third of Californians can’t rely on driving for their personal mobility. This year, the South Bay Transit Summit in Torrance also exposed how overlapping systems of infrastructure, regulation, and enforcement leave even willing bike riders few real choices. In the South Bay, this coercion isn’t theoretical.

LA County’s South Bay offers a case study in how dependence becomes design. A refinery explosion in nearby El Segundo averting catastrophe only by luck of the wind made it an apt week to reconsider life beyond fossil fuels. Yet the region’s streets, laws, and enforcement practices make that reflection nearly impossible. Here, driving isn’t merely convenient; it’s compulsory.

The gap between what’s possible and what exists is a frequent source of frustration for locals like Grace Peng at South Bay Forward, “Torrance/Carson is the third-largest job center in LA County. El Segundo/LAX is No. 4. Providing car-free access to these jobs is not just business-friendly; it’s also the minimum requirement for responsible regional sustainability and economic vitality.”

A Region That Criminalizes Alternatives

The South Bay’s coastal streets could be an ideal place for short trips by bike or on foot: most residents live within three miles of work, school, or errands. Instead, high-speed arterials, wide intersections, and sidewalk bike riding bans make those short distances feel like hostile terrain.

Local governments have responded to the rise of e-bikes not as an opportunity to improve safety or expand access, but as a crisis to be contained. Torrance has considered banning e-bikes from sidewalks where no dedicated bike infrastructure exists — forcing riders into 45 mph traffic lanes (alongside the other South Bay refinery that blew up ten years ago: https://www.csb.gov/exxonmobil-torrance-refinery-explosion-/).

The penalty in Manhattan Beach is far more extreme. Riders report receiving municipal citations rather than standard traffic tickets, meaning the city — not the state — sets the terms. Contesting one of these citations requires a $1,500 deposit up front, returned only if the appeal succeeds. One rider who tried to challenge his ticket described paying nearly $900 in total after multiple hearings and days lost to court appearances.

“I received my ticket on Redondo Ave and 19th Street at 8:15 a.m. during peak school drop-off time,” said Mark Polak. “I had blown through the stop sign without significantly slowing, but did not interfere with anyone’s right-of-way. The policeman said he was going after bikes and cars equally — but the bicycle fine is $500, while the State of California fine for running a stop sign in a motor vehicle is $238.”

Polak added that Manhattan Beach once offered an educational diversion program for bicycle infractions. That’s gone now. “He said I might be able to negotiate the fine down with the city finance office, but when I called, they thought I was crazy. I paid the fine.”

“Now that I’ve had one ticket, I’m worried about getting another with an enhanced fine for something I do every day,” he said, noting the lack of signal sensors that detect bicycles and the absence of safe crossings on Redondo Avenue — ironically a designated bike route. “Sometimes I even run the red light very early in the morning because the sensor doesn’t register bikes.”

Another rider, Kyle Richardson, was cited while taking his two children to AdventurePlex in Manhattan Beach on an electric cargo bike.

“For years I’ve taken my kids to daycare, school, and the beach on our electric cargo bike,” Richardson said. “On the morning of August 20, 2025, I was taking my two kids to AdventurePlex — one of the more affordable childcare facilities in the South Bay. When we arrived at N Redondo Ave, the road was busy with cars. I did a rolling stop to keep momentum with our 400-pound bike and checked that no cars were coming. Still, two officers pulled me over and wrote me a $500 ticket.”

He added, “I lead a bike bus in North Torrance at Carr Elementary. The Torrance Police Department supports and has attended our bike bus. The Manhattan Beach City Council, mayor, and Police Department should do more to support families in their communities to ride their bikes to school rather than punish them with excessive fines.”

Meanwhile, cars routinely roll through stop signs, block bike lanes, and speed down residential corridors with little consequence.

Predictable poor results

Infrastructure that privileges speed over safety, ordinances that ban bikes from the only safe spaces to ride, and a ticketing regime that fines bicyclists hundreds of dollars for common-sense behavior all converge to send a single message: don’t bother trying. Even as residents look for ways to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, especially in a region defined by refineries and freeways, the system keeps them cornered, forced back into cars by design.

If the South Bay offers a preview of what happens when local policy drifts away from statewide mobility goals, it’s a warning worth heeding. The conditions that make driving mandatory here are not accidents of geography or culture; they are the predictable results of rules, enforcement priorities, and infrastructure decisions that have made any other way of getting around feel impossible.

It’s hard to miss the irony. In a week marked by yet another refinery explosion, South Bay residents were reminded that the region’s dependence on oil doesn’t just pollute the air — it dictates how people move. The smoke clears, the streets reopen, and the cycle continues: fossil fuel production and fossil fuel consumption reinforcing each other, one ticket and one traffic lane at a time.

DOT’s Dead-End Logic

October 7, 2025/by Andrew Wright

DOT’s Dead-End Logic

On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation canceled grants for bike lanes, safer intersections, and pedestrian facilities with a stunning rationale: they were “hostile to motor vehicles.” In San Diego, a safety project was rescinded because it “appears to reduce lane capacity and a road diet that is hostile to motor vehicles.” In Alabama, converting a lane into a bikeway was deemed “counter to DOT’s priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles.” In Boston, a redesign of Mattapan Square was rejected for daring to change the “current auto-centric configuration” because it might “impede vehicle capacity and speed.”

This is not a misunderstanding. It is a declaration: the federal government is explicitly draining funding from active transportation in favor of cars.

If Safety Is “Hostile,” What Side Is DOT On?

Let’s be clear: Cars aren’t the enemy. But traffic violence is. And when the nation’s transportation agency labels safety improvements “hostile,” it is taking the side of pollution, congestion, and preventable deaths over common sense.

If your definition of quality of life is simply more car travel, you’ve missed the point. More cars mean more pollution, more danger, and more preventable deaths. Real quality of life comes from streets where people can move safely, breathe clean air, and choose how they get around.

Safe Streets Are Not a Partisan Luxury

This isn’t about left or right. Florida, Texas, and Alabama — hardly bastions of anti-car politics — are expanding bike paths and trail networks. Families everywhere want the same thing: streets where children can walk to school, seniors can cross safely, and anyone can ride a bike without risking their life.

To label that “hostile” is an insult to communities across the political spectrum working to make daily life safer and healthier.

CalBike Will Not Be Deterred

At CalBike, we don’t need Washington to tell us what freedom looks like. You don’t either. We know what real freedom looks like: the freedom to walk to school, ride to work, or roll to the store without fear. The freedom to breathe clean air and live in neighborhoods built for people, not traffic. The freedom to choose how we move.

The Department of Transportation may cling to an auto-centric past, but we are building the future together. So let Washington call it “hostile.” We call it progress. We call it life-saving. And we call on our friends, our allies, and every Californian who dreams of safe, vibrant streets: stay in this fight with us, because the road ahead belongs to all of us.

What to Expect When You Are Expecting a Bikeway

October 1, 2025/by Andrew Wright

This post is sponsored by Bike Legal: At Bike Legal, we advocate for protected bike lanes that separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Yet even the best infrastructure cannot remove every danger. We encourage riders to protect themselves by always wearing a helmet and using lights even during the day to increase visibility. Safer streets come from both strong infrastructure and personal responsibility working together. To learn more about how Bike Legal advocates for all bicyclists, check out our blog on bicycle safety, what to do after a crash, and cyclists’ rights on the road.

So you’ve spotted a shiny new bike lane on your commute, or maybe your city just opened a “Class IV separated bikeway” (that’s planner-speak for one with real protection). Fantastic! But then come the signs. Some are obvious, some feel like they were designed by a traffic engineer after their third cup of coffee. Let’s decode them together so you know exactly where you – and your bike or e-bike – belong.

This post leans heavily on the California MUTCD 2014, Part 9: Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities, which is the state’s playbook for bikeway signs. Let’s take a tour.

Why Bikeway Signs Exist

The MUTCD makes it clear: bike signs aren’t optional decoration. They’re standardized, retroreflective, and placed with intent. Their job is to:

Define spaces for bicycles and tell motorists when to stay out.
Warn about hazards that could toss you over your handlebars.
Guide you through routes, intersections, and crossings.
Help separate users; walkers, e-bikers, skateboarders

Common Signs and What They Mean

Bike Lane (R81(CA)) – This is the core bikeway sign. It marks where a bike lane begins, continues, or ends. You’ll usually see it at every arterial street or at half-mile intervals on long stretches. It regulates both bicycle and car behavior (Page 1369)

Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) – This sign makes it clear that bicycles have the legal right to use the entire lane. It’s particularly important on streets without usable shoulders or for e-bike riders moving at traffic speed (Page 1370)

Begin Right Turn Lane, Yield to Bikes (R4-4) – Found where right-turning cars must cross a bike lane. It tells drivers to yield and watch for bicycles in the lane (Page 1369)

STOP and YIELD Signs (R1-1, R1-2) – On shared-use paths, these signs apply to bicyclists at roadway crossings. If you see a STOP sign facing your direction, you’re expected to obey it (Page 1368).

No Motor Vehicles (R5-3 / R44A(CA)) – Typically posted at entrances to bike paths. Some paths also have signage to exclude “motorized bicycles,” which apply to e-bikes, depending on local policy (Page 1370).

Bicycle Warning (W11-1) and Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning (W11-15) – Yellow diamonds that warn of bicycle crossings or shared crossings with pedestrians. They’re often placed before intersections or shared-use path crossings to alert car drivers (Page 1372).

Surface Condition Warnings (W8-10, etc.) – Signs like “BUMP,” “DIP,” or “PAVEMENT ENDS.” They’re meant for bicyclists, warning about conditions that can cause a loss of control (Page 1372).

Bike Route Guide (D11-1, M1-8) – Green directional signs that confirm you’re on a designated bike route. They sometimes include mileage to destinations and function like breadcrumbs across the network (Pages 1373–1374).

–

E-Bikes and Signage

Speed limits: Some trails and paths set maximum speeds, often around 15 mph, regardless of whether you’re riding a traditional bike or an e-bike.
No Motorized Bicycles: Signs with this wording may exclude certain e-bikes, particularly Class 3 models (up to 28 mph). Always check posted signs before entering a path (see Page 1370).

Final Thought: Read the Signs, Ride with Confidence

New bikeways can be confusing for riders and drivers. But once you know the signage, you’ve got the inside scoop. Think of these signs as a secret code: crack it, and you’ll always know where you belong.

And hey, the next time you roll past a “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign, don’t just pedal nervously on the edge. Sit tall. You’ve got the right to be there. The sign says so.

One last story: remember the old “Share the Road” plaques? They were meant to remind drivers to watch for bikes, but many motorists read them as instructions for bicyclists to get out of the way. The confusion was so common that agencies retired the sign in favor of clearer language. It’s a good reminder that signs evolve, just like our streets. When the message is muddled, engineers sharpen it; when drivers or riders get it wrong, the code gets rewritten.

So read the signs, ride with confidence, and know this: the language of bikeways is still being refined—and you’re part of helping everyone learn how to speak it.

A bike-first standard for “self-driving” claims

September 29, 2025/by Andrew Wright

If an automaker wants to imply a car can drive independently, as certain manufacturers do with terms like “autopilot” and “full self driving” , the minimum requirement should include a high standard for safety around bicycles and other vulnerable road users, verified publicly. The League of American Bicyclists already outlines what competence for AVs looks like: treat cyclists as a distinct object class, expect the way we really ride (lane sharing, Idaho Stops, riding to give a wide berth to opening car doors), map bike infrastructure and laws, give us generous margins, slow down when uncertain, and continuously test against real cyclist scenarios.

Those principles should be codified. If a company markets “self-driving,” regulators should demand proof of safe operation around people riding bicycles. Can the system spot a rider in glare, rain, or riding around a parked van? Does it keep safe passing distance and speed? How does it handle a bike box, the end of a protected bikeway, or a weaving child? What happens when it isn’t sure? Companies should publish scenario libraries, pass/fail rates, and anonymized footage – because if they want trust, they should earn it where the stakes are highest: at the edge of the lane, the corner, and the door zone.

Clearing the language

Part of the problem is hype. Tesla’s own filings admit that “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is a driver-assist system, not autonomous driving. The company tells shareholders it plans for a robotaxi business “eventually,” but today it is solidly Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Level 2: the car can steer and accelerate, but the driver must remain fully engaged. Tesla’s product page is even plainer: “Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”

Meanwhile, companies such as Waymo actually operating driverless services describe their tech as SAE Level 4, the tier where the system is the driver within a defined service area. In other words: no human monitoring from the front seat when the service is active.

The policy landscape is a patchwork by design

At the federal level, NHTSA’s Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety is voluntary guidance; helpful, but not enforceable. It explicitly notes there’s no compliance requirement and offers best-practice checklists and advice to states. That’s an invitation to inconsistency.

States have filled the vacuum, producing a map of overlapping rules, pilot programs, and efforts to establish common understanding, but have fallen short of a shared definition or standardThe National Conference of State Legislatures documents dozens of enactments and executive orders that underscore just how varied the approaches are.

One bright line in California: Vehicle Code §24011.5 (SB 1398) bars manufacturers and dealers from naming or marketing SAE Level 2 features in ways that would lead a reasonable person to believe a vehicle can drive itself. It also requires a clear, plain-English notice of functions and limitations at sale or software update. That’s the floor for truth-in-advertising; it says don’t mislead, not prove you keep people biking safe.

Sacramento has been probing the broader claims: a California judge recently let Tesla drivers pursue a class action over alleged self-driving marketing—another sign that courts and regulators are sharpening scrutiny.

Clearing the language: stop conflating assistance with autonomy

A multi-stakeholder “Clearing the Confusion” coalition (AAA, Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, National Safety Council, PAVE, SAE) already recommends universal, function-based names for driver-assistance features to cut hype and misuse. Adopting these terms is a fast way to detox the discourse around “self-driving” and help buyers understand that Level 2 assists an engaged driver.

California’s SB 1398 points in the same direction with no more suggestive labels for partial automation but it stops short of performance-backed cyclist safety claims. That’s the next step.

The future we choose

Autonomous vehicles will reshape transportation as profoundly as the arrival of the automobile a century ago. Left unchecked, they could mean more traffic, less transit, and threats to the limited space we’ve carved out for walking and biking. Done right, they could reduce car dependence, expand affordable mobility, and reclaim urban land for housing and bikeways.

Bike-Friendly Bills Bite the Dust

September 15, 2025/by Laura McCamy

After several years of successful campaigns, including passing the Freedom to Walk Act,the Complete Streets Bill, and securing $1 billion for the Active Transportation Program, 2025 is shaping up to be a dismal year for active transportation efforts in Sacramento. A combination of budget shortfalls, literal and metaphorical fires, and a federal government openly hostile to the Golden State captured legislators’ attention. Bold steps sucked up most of the attention and the steady progress toward safer streets took a hit, though legislators found time to pass several minor e-bike regulations.

Killed by suspense (i.e. the state budget)

We won’t have the final tally until the governor finishes signing bills on October 12, but the suspense file took out CalBike’s Quick-Build bill.

The death of the Quick-Build Bill, AB 891, which went on suspense in August, was a shock. The bill, which would give Caltrans expanded ability to use quick-build methods to swiftly fix road hazards, had sailed through the legislative process. Caltrans didn’t oppose it, and we anticipated an easy passage.

Quick-build has been adopted by many communities, but Caltrans rarely uses it on state routes that double as local streets. With low-cost materials and a shorter planning time, quick-build’s quick fixes can save the lives of vulnerable road users and are cheaper and faster to build than traditional road projects. It’s strange to see a bill that would save California money get tanked in the Appropriations Committee, but that’s the mystery of the suspense file.

The demise of the Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, was expected. The author has now pulled the bill after amendments stripped it of most of its substance due to Senate Transportation committee concerns that the bill went too far. Assemblymember Steve Bennett hasn’t wavered in his support for bike highways; he plans to return next year with a revamped bill. We think this concept is an excellent way to approach the need for connected, protected bike routes that facilitate regional bike travel and we’re looking forward to working with Bennett on his new legislation.

Budget woes hit active transportation harder than highways

We had held out a sliver of hope to secure more money for the Active Transportation Program through the Cap-and-Trade (now Cap-and-Invest) reauthorization, but that window has closed. The ATP will have to struggle through another cycle with inadequate funding unless legislators make up the shortfall and return the $400 million cut from the program in next year’s budget.

The ATP represents a tiny fraction of California’s $20 billion transportation budget, but it has been the first place Governor Gavin Newsom has cut in tough budget times. It’s frustrating to watch California fall even more behind on its climate goals while pouring money into climate-killing highway projects. We will continue to work with our allies to redirect our state’s spending priorities next year.

The only bikes that got attention are electric

While legislators didn’t stand up for active transportation and safe streets where it counts, they did cave to the clamor for e-bike regulation with a slate of e-bike bills. Two of these bills have been passed and signed by the governor already and we expect the same for the remaining three bills. The one bill CalBike supported, SB 455, died in committee.

The evolving e-bike market does need better regulation, but the mix of bills moving through the legislature this year will only add to the confusion. Look for an announcement from CalBike soon as we take steps to build consensus on e-bike regulation.

Finding reasons for hope

Not everything is doom and gloom this season. CalBike is actively working with Caltrans on the implementation of SB 960, the Complete Streets law, and we’re hopeful that will herald greater investments in biking, walking, and transit infrastructure from the state’s SHOPP program. While the statewide e-bike incentive rollout has proceeded slowly, more and more local governments, utility companies, and other agencies are providing financial help for people who want to get around by e-bike. That, in turn, is increasing the number of bikes on the streets, leading to greater safety in numbers for bike riders.

The challenges of this year point the direction for future action. We need to elect stronger bike champions in greater numbers to the Assembly and Senate as well as local governments. California will elect a new governor in 2026, and having a state executive who understands and cares about active transportation and its role in mitigating the climate crisis would make a big difference. Look to CalBike for endorsements during the next election cycle.

As bike advocates, we know not to lose hope because of a couple of setbacks. We’re in this for the long haul.

Arroyo Vista’s Bike Bus: A Community in Motion

September 10, 2025/by Andrew Wright

It was a verdant September morning in South Pasadena when we joined the Arroyo Vista Elementary School Bike Bus. The sun was just beginning to warm the streets, bicycle bells rang out like punctuation marks, and the K-pop Demon Hunters soundtrack floated through the air. What could have been a routine Tuesday became something else entirely: a glimpse of how change takes root, not in sweeping gestures, but in the day-to-day choices of families who decide to ride together, transforming children’s bicycles from a toy into a tool to get around their neighborhood.

The Arroyo Vista & Marengo Elementary bike buses began under the guidance of South Pas Active, a local advocacy group, and has since been adopted and nurtured by parents and the PTA. What started as a one time event two years ago is now a fixture of school life — a weekly ritual that some students have carried with them into their middle school years, graduating from a group ride to daily independent commutes.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by California Bicycle Coalition (@calbikeorg)

How They Got Rolling

Like any good bike ride, momentum built steadily, thanks to the persistence of parents like Andrea Knopf and Kristen Pumphrey. Both recognized early on that the bike bus couldn’t survive on enthusiasm alone — it needed institutional backing and community buy-in. Kristen worked from the inside to secure formal support within the PTA, ensuring the program had legitimacy and visibility within the school. Andrew, living just blocks away from Arroyo Vista, brought the day-to-day commitment: showing up, organizing families, and treating the bike bus as an extension of her own front yard.

Together, they transformed a neighborhood experiment into a schoolwide tradition. Their efforts rippled outward: families rallied to protect the bike lanes that made the routes possible, gathering 200 signatures to preserve Grand Avenue Slow Streets. And with PTA support, the initiative expanded further, leading to the creation of a complementary “walk bus” that now runs every Friday.

Overcoming Concerns

Parents’ first questions were predictable: Is it safe? Will it take too much time? The answers, Andrea and Kristen found, came through practice. “Safety in numbers” is more than a slogan, it’s lived in reality. And once families saw the joy of riding together, the excuses lost their hold.

Keys to Success

Consistency: rain or shine, the bike bus rolls.
Commitment: three or four parents who won’t quit form the backbone.
Community: WhatsApp chats keep coordination casual; school newsletters and PTA updates make it official.
Partnership: the school added bike racks, extended cones to hold space, and the principal now references the bike bus with pride.

Andrea captured the spirit of it best: “I had tears in my eyes because we are building something amazing.”

Getting Started? Start Simple.

Begin with one route, one day a week.
Younger kids (especially K–2) usually ride with a caregiver.
Independence grows over time; several riders now commute daily to middle school.
Follow the “always bring a friend” rule to build momentum.

Looking Ahead

The bike bus has become woven into the culture of Arroyo Vista. This October, the PTA and parents will host an on-campus bike clinic with tune-ups, safety fittings, and a bike rodeo. What began as an experiment is now a tradition — and a testament to what happens when advocacy connects with community.

At Arroyo Vista, biking to school is no longer just a way to get from home to class. It is a story about independence, about building trust, about the joy of starting the day in motion. And most of all, it is a reminder that the future of safe streets begins here, with kids who believe riding together is simply the way to go.

California’s E-Bike Voucher Program: Retailers Weigh In

September 9, 2025/by Andrew Wright

When California launched its long-awaited E-Bike Incentive Project in 2024, applicants weren’t the only ones navigating uncharted territory. Retailers had to figure out how to translate vouchers into bikes on the ground. CalBike spoke to Upway, the retailer that has processed multiple vouchers and recently opened its West Coast headquarters in Redondo Beach.

Two Paths to a Voucher Bike

Erik Haamer, Operations Director for Upway, described seeing two distinct customer experiences. The simplest cases came in person: riders showed up with a voucher and ID, eligibility was confirmed, and the bike rolled out the door. Four out of six early attempts worked just like that.

Online voucher redemption was another story. The program required vouchers verified through the state’s portal, bikes to be delivered assembled, and signed receipts collected at delivery. That meant more paperwork, more moving parts, and smaller profit margins, making the redemption tougher on both sides of the transaction.

What California Got Right, and What Could Be Smoothed

Comparing California’s program with those of other states and localities highlights the different choices incorporated into program design. Haamer noted that in Minnesota, Upway delivered more bikes with greater ease. Retailers were allowed to ship in-box rather than needing to deliver bikes fully assembled, the bike criteria are less stringent, and the state cut checks directly as opposed to direct deposit payments for California retailers.

California took a different tack: eligibility rules that prioritize greater safety, additional paperwork for retailers, and higher delivery standards, ensuring the people who received bikes didn’t have to assemble the bikes themselves. That narrowed the number of bikes that qualified, including popular mountain and road e-bike models, and slowed things down for people who sell bikes. But it also meant the bikes approved under the program met higher safety standards and were not able to travel at speeds outside of that allowed for legal e-bikes.

Proof of Concept

Despite higher standards, the program worked. People who never would have been able to afford an e-bike are now riding them. Some wanted features the rules didn’t allow, but all applicants with a voucher found reliable bikes that fit their needs.

Retailers quickly learned the California system, verified voucher numbers, and adapted their shipping process to meet requirements. That effort mattered to customers who wanted online purchases. One rider put it simply in a review: “Upway was pretty much the only retailer that would deliver according to the program’s specifications… I’m getting exactly what I wanted, not having to settle.”

Next Rounds

California’s e-bike voucher program has proven its value: people who get vouchers are riding away on clean, affordable transportation. That’s no small thing. For many households, the $1,750 value makes the difference between putting off an e-bike purchase and actually owning one. The result is more people using bikes for everyday trips, more car miles replaced, and more momentum for clean mobility.

The main hitch isn’t eligibility rules or retailer logistics — it’s scale. Nearly 100,000 people tried for just 1,500 vouchers in the first application window. Each new round sees more applicants than available incentives, leaving tens of thousands of people on the sidelines. Retailers have shown they can adapt to the program’s requirements, and Californians are eager. The bottleneck is simply that the state hasn’t funded enough vouchers to meet the demand.

Families across the state, especially low-income households, need access to reliable, sustainable transportation options to help combat climate change. California’s e-bike voucher program has already proven what’s possible: when people get support, they choose clean mobility. The only barrier left is scale. With more robust funding, the state could turn a small but successful pilot into a cornerstone of its climate and transportation strategy helping thousands more households swap car trips for bike trips and building momentum for healthier, safer roads.

California Bicycle Summit 2026 Dates, Location Announced

August 28, 2025/by Kevin Claxton

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.

New Directions for Bike Highways

August 27, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

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.

Mauricio Hernandez – CalBike Webinar (Final082025)Download

Lessons from Bogotá

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.

Welcome to Bogota_EN Download

Shifting Transportation Funding Priorities to Meet the Moment

August 26, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

For most of its existence, CalBike has worked to secure more funding for bike infrastructure and safety improvements. We were instrumental in getting dedicated funding for biking and walking projects through SB 1 gas tax revenue for the Active Transportation Program (ATP). In recent years, we’ve seen the small percentage of our transportation dollars allocated for active transportation clawed back while huge pots of money still flow to climate-killing highway projects.

As the death toll on California’s roads rises and the climate crisis becomes more dire, the solutions embraced by our elected leaders look a lot like the things that got us here. With our Invest/Divest campaign, CalBike urges elected officials to stop digging us into a deeper climate hole and shift funding priorities to programs that will help us get out of the hole.

Addressing the transportation crisis

In times of crisis, state and local governments can find the will and the money to take extraordinary steps to meet community needs. We saw that in a fast-moving emergency with the heroic efforts to fight the Los Angeles fires earlier this year. California’s housing shortage is a long-term emergency, but lawmakers have taken aggressive steps to remove obstacles and reduce costs, thus incentivizing home building.

In Paris, Mayor Anne Hidalgo is addressing another long-term crisis: climate change. With ambitious goals to add bikeways and make biking an appealing option for getting around the city, Paris has dramatically reduced air pollution — and thus carbon emissions.

The transformation of Paris isn’t cheap. The city’s plan comes with a budget of 250 million euros (around $300 million USD), and it’s taken a great deal of political will and a commitment across government agencies to make the changes happen.

But that’s what we do in a crisis, isn’t it?

Engineering as an obstacle

Like the bills aimed at growing our housing stock, California lawmakers have taken some steps toward making it easier to build biking and walking infrastructure. The Complete Streets Bill, which CalBike sponsored and helped pass last year, strengthens requirements for Caltrans to include bike, pedestrian, and transit priority elements in its road repair projects, tapping into the large pot of funding the agency has for maintaining and improving state routes. And SB 71, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, would give bikeway planning a permanent exemption from CEQA, California’s environmental review law, and extend the temporary exemption for bikeway infrastructure projects to 2040. These are important steps, but they’re not enough.

One of the lessons bike advocates have learned through hard experience is that something isn’t always better than nothing. A bikeway that drops off at an intersection or stops short when competing uses make allocating street space complicated won’t encourage people to get around by bike. To give Californians true options in how they get around, we need the commitment to push through the hard spaces, overcome NIMBYism, and build connected, protected bike routes.

European cities have one advantage over the U.S.: there is no room for hard-and-fast rules. In adding modern transportation to places built before bicycles or cars were invented, planners are forced to be creative. When the sidewalk dwindles down to nothing in the face of a building that’s stood for centuries, people walk in the street. There is no minimum lane width, as cars, buses, and delivery vans (and delivery bikes, in Amsterdam) jostle for space with pedestrians, bike riders, trams, and vendors pushing carts.

We need design guidance for safe bikeways and traffic lanes, but we also need flexibility to find new solutions when a street narrows rather than dropping the bike lane because “we couldn’t build it safely.”

What this moment asks of us

Climate change is an existential crisis that calls on us to step outside of our comfort zone and take bold actions. Here are three things California needs to do to shift our transportation priorities from fossil-fueled disaster to human-centered safety.

Slow down cars. There’s no solution that keeps people on bikes and walking from interacting with vehicular traffic. Reducing speeds through design and, ultimately, changing cultural norms is the only way for all modes to peacefully coexist.
Spend A LOT of money on active transportation infrastructure. By a lot, we mean A LOT. Spend like there’s a climate disaster paired with rising pedestrian and bicyclist deaths, and we actually want to solve this rather than slowly roasting in a fiery pit of our own making. For context, California’s annual transportation budget is around $20 billion; combined with federal funds, we spend over $30 billion. The ATP gets approximately $300 million a year — that’s the same amount Paris spent on active transportation, but spread across a state with 40 million people. We can afford a moonshot to make our state more bikeable if we make it a priority.
Make traffic engineering flexible and evidence-based. Traffic engineers are extremely risk-averse and often unwilling to build infrastructure that isn’t sanctioned in one of the official documents they treat like bibles. But those manuals are car-centric, often recommending infrastructure that isn’t safe for vulnerable road users. Shifting the mindset of hundreds of engineers isn’t easy. It might require new laws, lifting more regulations, or changing liability laws.

There aren’t enough electric cars to save us from climate catastrophe. We’re going to have to make big changes to our transportation systems. Cities in other countries that have done this have seen better health outcomes, reduced deaths, and a higher quality of life. CalBike is committed to bringing those benefits to our state.