CalBike Executive Director Dave Snyder Leaving to Join PeopleForBikes
CalBike to Begin Executive Director Search
Sacramento: CalBike’s Executive Director, Dave Snyder, will leave the organization in August to take a position as Senior Director of Local Innovation at national advocacy organization PeopleForBikes.
Since joining CalBike as Executive Director in 2010, Snyder has grown the organization into a respected voice for bicycling in the state’s capital and an influential leader among organizations that advocate for bicycling in communities across California. CalBike is grateful for his tenure and excited to continue collaborating with him in his new role at PeopleForBikes.
“I am glad to have had the chance to serve CalBike’s mission as its executive director for a decade,” Snyder said. “We’ve built a strong team that is ready to take this organization to the next level as a powerful voice for equitable and prosperous communities where bicycling is an easy and safe choice for all Californians.”
Under Snyder’s leadership, CalBike’s tenacious, hardworking team has passed model e-bike legislation, pushed through Complete Streets reform at Caltrans, defeated a helmet mandate, legalized protected bike lanes, and gotten several bills passed to protect bicyclists, including the Three Feet for Safety Law requiring motorists to give bicyclists 3 feet of space when passing. They have gotten more funding for bicycling as well, securing an increase in state-level funding for biking and walking from around $100M to over $1B, and winning $10M for e-bike purchase incentives.
CalBike has helped to coordinate more than twenty local advocacy organizations with a combined membership of over 100,000, influencing elections for the California State Assembly and Senate and building support for ballot measures such as the successful defeat in 2018 of a proposed repeal of the gas tax.
“We’re incredibly grateful to Dave for all he’s done for the California Bicycle Coalition, and we’re delighted he’s staying in bicycle advocacy. Dave has built a strong, talented team to continue this legacy of building safer, more equitable communities so all Californians can prosper. We’re also excited about CalBike’s next chapter and have begun the process to identify new executive leadership to take us to the next level,” said Cynthia Rose, CalBike’s Board Chair.
The Board has appointed Kevin Claxton, CalBike’s Operations Manager as Interim Director. “I’m delighted to take the helm at CalBike, supporting staff and board as we continue the great work that Dave has led. It’s a critical time for transportation, with many terrific opportunities for our policy team to advance our mission to create healthy, equitable communities through bicycling.”
###
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Dave-Snyder-in-Bogota-cropped-header-scaled.jpg11342560Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2022-07-19 06:30:002022-07-18 16:07:35Executive Director Dave Snyder Announces Departure
When the legislature allocated $10 million for e-bike subsidies in the budget for this fiscal year, it included language stating that the program would launch on July 1, 2022. However, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has moved more slowly, so the program is not yet ready to launch. Here’s what we do and don’t know about California’s statewide e-bike voucher program.
What’s the current status of the e-bike voucher program?
CARB is working on selecting a vendor to administer the program. We expect the agency to announce the vendor soon.
When will e-bike vouchers become available?
It’s not clear yet how soon the program will begin offering vouchers for e-bike purchases. Once a program administrator is in place, we hope to start getting more information, including a timeline for implementation.
What is CalBike’s role in the e-bike voucher program?
CalBike advocated for the $10 million budget allocation to help Californians buy e-bikes. We continue to follow the program closely and work with CARB to ensure that the vendor administers the program effectively and equitably.
CalBike doesn’t have any authority to set the rules of the e-bike program or give out vouchers. Our role as an outside watchdog allows us to advocate for things that will make the program successful, such as providing large enough grants to make an e-bike truly affordable.
CalBike will also continue to spread the word about e-bike vouchers, particularly once they become available so that the program is a success and we can have a much larger budget allocation next year!
Who is eligible for an e-bike voucher?
The eligibility criteria haven’t been firmly established. Still, early indications are that there will be an income eligibility requirement, with all or most of the first $10 million in funding going to low-income California residents.
We hope to get more information about eligibility once the vendor outlines an implementation plan, and we will share that information once we have it.
How much will the e-bike subsidies be?
The program administrator will set e-bike subsidy levels.
How do I apply for an e-bike purchase voucher?
There’s no application process in place as yet; the program administrator will put that in place.
What if the e-bike program runs out of money?
If the e-bike program quickly distributes all its funds, that would demonstrate the demand for this subsidy, and we would consider that a success. CalBike will advocate for more funding in future budgets, and we hope the program will secure funding to continue without interruption.
How do I find out more about e-bike purchase incentives?
Please sign our list to get updates about the program. Going forward, we expect to send more frequent updates as the details of the e-bike voucher program unfold.
We were disappointed to see AB 1778, Assemblymember Cristina Garcia’s bill to end freeway expansion in environmentally disadvantaged communities, die in the Senate Transportation Committee. But, at CalBike, we know that we often lose before we win. We’re in it for the long haul because critical advances like refocusing California’s resources away from climate-killing car-expansion projects and toward active transportation are worth fighting for. That’s why CalBike joined 17 other advocacy organizations to send a letter to Caltrans asking for a list of legacy freeway projects.
A change at Caltrans with a loophole big enough to drive a truck through
Transportation and environmental justice advocates won a victory in May when L.A. Metro canceled a plan to widen the 710 freeway in Southeast Los Angeles County, an area already overburdened by pollution. It’s the kind of project AB 1778 targets, but it represents another challenge in greening our transportation system. Caltrans started planning the 710 expansion in 1999 when California’s climate goals and priorities were very different from today.
Recently, Caltrans leadership has embraced its Complete Streets policy, including bike and pedestrian safety improvements in many more new projects. But legacy projects, some of which have been in the pipeline for years, may not meet those goals.
The groups signing the letter to Caltrans have requested a list of all projects that will increase vehicle miles traveled, so those projects can be reevaluated through the lens of community needs for public health, climate change mitigation, and transportation equity.
Why freeway-building should stop
Not every freeway project is the same, and there may be freeway projects that serve drivers’ interests. However, most freeway expansions and extensions are counterproductive in several ways:
More lanes = more congestion. It’s counterintuitive but also empirically correct that widening highways increases congestion rather than reducing it. If you live near a freeway that’s added lanes, you have probably experienced increased traffic due to induced demand.
Freeway construction often perpetuates environmental injustice. From San Francisco to San Diego, California cities have built freeways through historically Black, Latino, and Asian neighborhoods, breaking up communities and driving people from city centers. The practice isn’t consigned to history: It wasn’t long ago that City Heights CDC had to fight hard to reduce the impact of a freeway expansion that would primarily serve suburban communities but was routed through a disadvantaged San Diego neighborhood already suffering from elevated pollution levels.
California needs transportation alternatives, not more cars. Electric cars are a vital element of our climate solution, but they are just one element. We need to fundamentally change how we get around to have any hope of mitigating climate change. This means more public transportation, better biking and walking routes, and more options for all Californians. Freeways often create barriers and hazards that discourage active transportation. We need to start thinking about tearing them down, not expanding or extending them.
Moving forward without freeway expansions
Supporting AB 1778 and seeking transparency on legacy road-building projects is just the beginning of CalBike’s efforts, joining many community organizations already doing this difficult work. Alongside the many environmental, social, and racial injustices, we see reducing freeway construction as a broader transportation justice and equity issue, and we will continue to partner with others at the state level to improve health and safety for all California communities.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/I-80_congestion-NB_news_release_crop.jpg6301200Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2022-07-14 13:58:372022-07-14 13:58:39It’s Time for California to Stop Building Freeways. Full Stop.
Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature officially agreed upon next year’s state budget on June 30, 2022. It is the biggest budget ever set in California, and it includes the most significant amount dedicated to active transportation: $1.05 billion in additional funding.
However, a $1.05 billion increase is only a drop in the bucket of the budget’s $47 billion allocation for infrastructure. The total biking and walking safety allocation represents only 2% of California’s infrastructure budget. It certainly isn’t enough to transform California’s communities into places where the average person will consider biking a safe and convenient transportation option for short trips. In a state ravaged by climate change, we must do better. In reality, even the $2 billion CalBike advocated for was just a down payment on the funding needed to prepare our state for a transition to low-carbon transportation.
Active transportation gets a much-needed boost
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) will receive most of the $1.05 billion increase. The increased ATP budget is significant because the program has historically been short on money compared to the number of projects in the pipeline across the state. The total amount available in Cycle 6 of the ATP is $1.65 billion, a substantial increase over past funding rounds. The additional money will allow the program to greenlight many more projects, so you can expect new and improved biking and walking infrastructure in many communities around California over the next few years.
But CalBike’s work is far from done because the increase doesn’t keep up with the growing demand for active transportation infrastructure improvements. In Cycle 6, local and regional agencies have submitted over $3.1 billion in projects (which have a total cost of over $4 billion), so the infusion is not even close to enough to cover basic active transportation needs, not to mention the transformative changes we need.
Envisioning transformative change for California streets and neighborhoods
California needs transformative change in how we get around, and we need it NOW. Our climate crisis keeps escalating, so we don’t have another 10 years to ponder the next steps. We already know what we need to do because other cities and countries are leading the way, taking steps to make their cities more bikeable, walkable, and sustainable.
California’s 2022 budget is a missed opportunity to allocate the funding California needs to build an equitable and sustainable transportation system that will achieve our state’s climate goals. This year was a critical time to invest in transformative changes since we have an almost $100 billion budget surplus. In an uncertain economy, we may not have another opportunity like this for many years.
EVs won’t save us
The budget for active transportation is small compared to the investment in automobiles in many ways. For example, it includes a $10 billion investment in electric cars over six years, a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation. But EVs still have significant carbon footprints, and mining for the lithium needed to build electric car batteries brings its own environmental havoc. Walkable, bikeable communities are a better solution to the climate crisis.
Policymakers continue to propose investments in electric vehicles as the primary solution to climate collapse, and EVs alone won’t meet California’s climate goals. And the focus on electric cars is even more shortsighted because it fails to meet our societal goals to reduce traffic violence, increase public health, develop more vibrant local communities, and undo the harm that freeways and large roads impose on us all. We don’t just need more infrastructure — we need a transformative mode shift. Continuing to funnel state money into electric vehicles keeps outmoded and harmful mobility patterns in place.
A roadmap for better biking
We must make it convenient and comfortable for many more Californians to take short trips by walking and biking, not driving. To do that, California needs to move quickly to make biking easier — and the signed budget just doesn’t include enough money to build bike infrastructure fast or create the connected networks we need for genuinely bikeable neighborhoods.
CalBike continues to advocate for a separate pot of money for connected bike networks. The fund would give money to communities that commit to building fully connected bike networks quickly — in five years or less. We believe that, by putting some of these projects on the ground soon, we’ll be able to demonstrate the potential of safe, protected bike networks to transform how Californians get around. That will encourage other communities to invest in their own bike networks.
Think about what you need in your community to close the gaps and create safe bike networks and even bicycle highways to get you where you need to go. Neighborhoods with all the services residents need within a 15-minute bike ride would improve safety, air quality, and quality of life. Those are the types of projects that this budget should pay for in every community throughout California. With our historic surplus and in the face of a looming climate crisis, now is the time to transform our state.
We can’t drive ourselves out of the climate crisis. California’s 2022 active transportation budget is an excellent step in the right direction, but we need much more investment in safe streets. CalBike will keep pressing for that funding.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/1.05B-for-bikes-2.png10801920Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2022-07-07 17:41:532022-07-11 16:26:22California’s 2022 Budget: Better, but Still not Enough for Active Transportation
The California State Legislature is advancing more bicycle-related bills than ever. At least three times this year, a legislative committee approved seven important policy changes in a single day. With my years of experience, I’ve never seen so much energy and attention on bicycling issues at the state level. I’m grateful to our members whose advocacy has made this possible and to the legislators advancing powerful policy changes. It’s great to watch, and I want our organization to do everything we can to influence the changemakers who are taking bold steps to make our streets safer in a year that could have a huge impact on active transportation in California.
Three goals that will bring better biking to California
These goals top CalBike’s agenda:
Build 100% complete, protected bikeway networks in five California cities in five years.
At current funding levels, most local and regional bike plans won’t be complete for another 30 years. And even then, those plans too often leave gaps where one dangerous intersection or one block of fast-moving traffic will scare most people away from biking. CalBike has proposed a new program to fund cities that build complete bikeway networks without gaps quickly. We won’t wait 30 years.
Make it easy and inexpensive to hop on a shared bike anywhere in California.
We need to subsidize bike-share as an integral part of public transit so that anybody who can afford the bus can afford a similar ride on a shared bike. Shared bikes and scooters can be just as valuable as public transit if they’re supported with the same level of funding. Good shared micromobility programs, equitably distributed and affordable, can help millions of Californians take advantage of multimodal public transit and bike trips instead of car trips and make transit more effective and efficient.
Make sure that when we talk about safe streets, we prioritize safety for Black and brown Californians.
Our policy team worked hard last year to pass bills that would have removed opportunities for pretextual policing—allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yields and decriminalizing safe mid-block crossings. The governor vetoed both bills, but we’re bringing them back this year with some changes that we think will garner his signature.
We can’t forget the climate crisis
Climate disaster looms closer every day. Fire, drought, and extreme weather hit disadvantaged people hardest, widening social inequities. Energy costs, including the price of gas, are rising faster than incomes, squeezing low-income people even more. We can’t separate climate policy from economic policy from transportation policy.
Bicycling is central to creating transportation policy that will meet this critical moment in California.
We know that to make transportation affordable for everyone, Californians need to be much less dependent on their cars. We can do that easily, as CalBike members well know, by relying much more heavily on bikes. And we have to make the switch quickly, in the next 10 years.
Yet California is moving very slowly to implement the changes necessary to make bicycling an easy choice for people. California’s policymakers know that bicycling is a low-cost, sustainable, healthy, and joyful transportation solution—bikeways are drawn on maps in every city and town in California. But local governments aren’t building them. That’s why CalBike’s 2022 agenda focuses on how we can speed up this transformation.
The past two years have proven that California’s lawmakers and agencies can move quickly when faced with a dire challenge. The climate crisis, and the cascade of issues that result from it, require the same level of urgent action.
No more “something is better than nothing” for bicycle infrastructure.
No more prioritizing freeway building over creating safe neighborhoods.
No more programs that advantage the comfortable and leave everyone else behind.
We can’t do this work without YOU. We rely on individual supporters, and your involvement is hugely impactful to the work we do.
On June 22, 2022, CalBike Executive Director Dave Snyder testified in opposition to a bill that would add an insurance requirement to shared bikes and scooters that is out of proportion to the potential harm caused by these devices. The cost of this requirement, if AB 371 passes, would put most private and public shared micromobility systems out of business in California. The bill passed out of committee, with amendments, and still poses a threat to shared bikes and scooters.
Here’s what Snyder told the committee (written testimony follows video):
Written testimony:
My name is Dave Snyder of the California Bicycle Coalition.
Let me start by saying that for our mission — which is to advocate for equitable communities where bicycling helps people be prosperous, healthy, and joyful — nothing is more important than being able to walk safely. Nobody should have to worry about a bike or a scooter hitting them or getting in their way as they walk down the sidewalk.
It’s also important that people have affordable convenient transportation. You should not have to incur the expense of an automobile to accomplish that. Unfortunately, our transit systems aren’t good enough for most people for most trips. It’s rarely fast or frequent and buses don’t go door-to-door. That’s where shared bikes and scooters come in.
Let me be clear. We’re not talking about the current systems and the companies that operate them. This isn’t about them. It’s about the future of equitable transportation. A transit system that provides fast and frequent service on major routes, and a shared bike or scooter for that last mile to one’s door, can actually compete with the car for convenience and is much more affordable. If we care about equity, if we care about climate, if we care about safety, we want to expand these systems, as an integral part of public transit.
This is the future of micromobility. It’s not these companies providing their current expensive service.
Responsible cities get all of this. They support their shared micromobility systems, and they hold them responsible through their permits. They require their users to park their device to a meter out of the way, and take a picture of that before ending their trip. They are beginning to require sidewalk detection, a new technology that works, that can disable the device when it’s on the sidewalk. It solves the problem this bill is trying to address in the right way, by preventing the problem in the first place.
This bill will make expansion of shared micromobility prohibitively expensive for all but the richest cities. We know this because a half dozen cities and nonprofits have received $1 million grants from the ARB for “Clean Mobility Options” for disadvantaged communities and they plan to operate shared bike systems, but they can’t get started because they can’t find insurance. They estimate that to get that insurance, it will cost $750,000 for three years of service. That’s three-quarters of a million dollars for the insurance industry, and less than a quarter to support disadvantaged communities with clean mobility. That’s not the way to advance an equitable transportation system.
Some of those organizations are operating just bike share, and they are frustrated that bikes are included in this bill. Bikes are much safer. You can carry stuff with them. They are less likely to be ridden on the sidewalk. And they confer health benefits to their users. They have externalized benefits. Everything else, especially car driving, has externalized costs.
This bill will decrease public transit use, bicycling, and scooting. It will increase driving, and therefore make our communities, and those of us who walk in them, less safe, less prosperous, less healthy, and our climate more at risk.
With respect for the author, and with the important comment that we support the provisions for Braille and tactile markings, we respectfully request that you reject this bill this year. Allow the transportation committee to consider these issues, and come back next year with something that will better balance the goals of the bill so that its impact on equitable transportation is not so devastating.
Large coalition supports bike-share, opposes AB 371
On June 21, 2022, representatives from 20 organizations wrote a letter to the Senate Insurance Committee opposing the Kill Bike-Share Bill :
Dear Senator Rubio:
The California Bicycle Coalition, and our partners, oppose AB 371. The bill’s effects do not match its intentions to protect pedestrians. Instead, it will damage the potential of shared bikes and scooters to provide a safe, equitable, and accessible transportation option for California’s disadvantaged communities. It will increase driving and all of the harms associated with such an increase: increased injuries and fatalities from traffic crashes, reduced economic security for low-income people, and worse pollution in already burdened neighborhoods.
The shared bike and scooter systems of today do not cause the problems that they caused when they were first deployed a few years ago. Their users too often left them abandoned in the pedestrian path of travel, posing a hazard to people walking, which is especially problematic for people with vision impairments. Sometimes their users, especially when on a scooter, operate them on the sidewalk where they could crash into a pedestrian. As central to our advocacy for equitable and inclusive communities, CalBike recognizes that sidewalks are the domain of pedestrians and that people deserve to walk (or push their wheelchair, etc.) without negotiating that space with others on fast, wheeled devices.
The problem of bikes and scooters improperly operated on the sidewalk is mostly solved in modern shared micromobility systems. Thanks to state law allowing cities to regulate these devices, and to cities whose permits recognize these problems, operators can now require the user to park their device to a pole, safely and out of the way, before they may finish their trip. Scooters now come equipped with the sidewalk detection ability which can prevent operation on the sidewalk.
State law could amplify these local initiatives by mandating such practices where appropriate, rather than leaving it up to the cities, and advance the cause of safer sidewalks. AB 371 does not do that. Instead, it burdens the entire industry of shared micromobilty with an insurance requirement that will drastically increase the cost and make it nearly impossible to expand the service to people who need it most. That burden will do more harm to Californians than the benefit of a few injury settlements. The harm is immense.
Shared bikes and scooters, when combined with public transit, are the future of equitable mobility. Where Californians must currently rely on a car for convenient door-to-door transportation, a shared bike can close the gap between a user’s destination and the nearest reasonably convenient transit station. Or it can take you directly to your destination for a fraction of the cost of an automobile. It is imperative for equity and climate and safety that we provide a public transit system for Californians that is competitive with the automobile. Shared bikes and scooters are by far the most cost-effective way to do that. AB 371 will drive up the costs of shared micromobility and make it much harder to provide the equitable transportation system that Californians deserve.
It is important to note that it drives up the cost of bicycling to the same degree that it drives up the cost of using scooters, despite the vastly different risk and benefit profiles of scooters and bikes. Even if the committee decides that some insurance for some devices is good policy, bikes should not be included in this legislation.
Bikes are superior to scooters in several ways. Their larger wheels make them much safer for the user. With greater carrying capacity, they are much more useful. Data from shared micromobility companies indicate that they are much less likely to be ridden on the sidewalk. They are much less likely to be badly parked, although, as noted, thanks to permit regulations, scooter users are adopting the long-standing custom of bicycle riders of parking their bikes next to parking meters or on a bike rack outside of the pedestrian path of travel.
Crucially, bike riders incur health benefits from riding. This is just as true of shared e-bikes as it is for regular bikes, because shared e-bikes can be regulated to limit their top motor-assisted speed and to ensure that at least some effort is required to pedal the device. Increasing bicycling will improve public health by reducing incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and depression, and reduce health care costs. It’s a consideration of extreme importance where the government has a greater responsibility for health care and therefore a greater concern about health care costs, and should be a vital concern to legislators with aspirations to improve California’s health care system and reduce health care insurance costs to taxpayers and businesses.
AB 371 has even more transportation and health policy questions. Why are mopeds not included? California law allows for shared mobility systems using mopeds to be offered to users without requiring motorcycle licenses that are otherwise required for personally used mopeds. By exempting mopeds from this insurance requirement but including bikes, AB 371 provides a perverse incentive to rely on mopeds for shared mobility, increasing the risk of severe injury to riders and pedestrians and decreasing opportunities to improve public health.
Finally, AB 371 misses an opportunity to promote safe, equitable shared mobility by not imposing a cap on allowable insurance requirements by government agencies. If $10,000 is the right amount, it should be legislated as such and not treated merely as a floor. Government agencies should not be allowed to engage in “transportation redlining” by effectively prohibiting shared micromobility in their communities, which they can do by imposing prohibitively high insurance requirements.
We are witnessing this impact right now with the Clean Mobility Options program approved by the legislature to improve transportation equity. The Air Resources Board gave a number of $1 million CMO grants to nonprofits and city agencies to operate shared bikes for their low-income residents. None of these programs are operational currently because they can’t find insurance to meet the ARB’s requirements. The Insurance Committee should free up the CMO money by treating an appropriate insurance limit, applied to the appropriate devices, as a cap as well as a floor.
In sum, AB 371 has severe impacts on transportation equity. It will damage our ability to improve public health and provide alternatives to driving that are essential to our equity and climate goals. It will increase driving and all of the harms associated with increased traffic, including, tragically, pedestrian injuries and deaths. AB 371 does not strike the right balance between giving injured pedestrians the opportunity to recover damages from injuries and preventing those injuries in the first place.
We urge the Committee to reject AB 371, and consider it next year after the Transportation committees have a chance to evaluate how to strike that balance in a way that preserves our opportunities to develop an equitable, healthy, and environmentally sustainable transportation system.
If you have any questions please reach out to dave@calbike.org, in the case you need to better understand our opposition. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Snyder, Executive Director, CalBike
Sandhya Laddha, Policy Director, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Kara Vernor, Executive Director, Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Eli Akira Kaufman, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
David Diaz, Executive Director, Active San Gabriel Valley
Debra Banks, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Will Rhatigan, Advocacy Director, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
Anne Thomas, Executive Director, Shasta Living Streets
Rick Ellison, Bike SLO County, Bike SLO County Central
Kevin Hamilton, Co-Director & Co-Founder, California Asthma Collaborative
Colin Bogart, Steering Committee Member, Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition
Matthew Baker, Policy Director, Planning and Conservation League
Jonathan Matz, California Senior Policy Manager, Safe Routes Partnership
Tarrell Kullaway, Executive Director, Marin County Bike Coalition
Heather Deutsch, Executive Director, SBBIKE+COAST
Justin Hu-Nguyen, Director of Advocacy, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
Asha Chandy, Advocate, Bike Bakersfield
Amy Thompson, Transportation Policy, TransForm
Kris Fortin, Project Director, Santa Ana Active Streets
Jesse Rosenberg, General Manager, Santa Barbara BCycle
Andres Ramirez, Executive Director, People for Mobility Justice
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/bike-share-narrow.jpg4811024Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2022-06-27 15:43:162022-06-29 10:47:46Voices of the Coalition Opposed to Kill Bike-Share Bill
Our June primary election Bike the Vote efforts proved vital to advancing our statewide bike agenda. Several of our endorsed bike champions will move on to the November general election. Despite the fact that we experienced perhaps California’s lowest ever turnout.
Low turnout could have negatively affected some relative newcomers to the political scene, who unfortunately did not move past the primary. Rising stars like Jennifer Esteen in the East Bay and Andrea Rosenthal in the Los Angeles High Desert were not successful, but we’re certain their passion and steadfast commitment for active transportation will remain a priority for them in their other pursuits.
“We look forward to November and the opportunity to mobilize to elect bold bike champions”
However slim the voters, voters still picked some of our biggest bike champions. In Northern California, Dave Jones prevailed in his State Senate race. In Southern California, Laura Friedman, Tasha Boerner-Horvath, and Steve Bennett all were successful in their Assembly re-election campaigns. Along with Central Coast elected official Dawn Addis running for Assembly District 30, all five will be on the ballot for the November election.
We look forward to November and the opportunity to mobilize to elect bold bike champions who will stand up to special interests for cars and freeway building and fight for Californians. Stay tuned for our general election endorsements in the months ahead.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/i-voted-sticker-lot-1550340-scaled-e1583538108252.jpg6081996Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2022-06-21 11:36:442022-06-21 11:36:46Election Recap: June 2022 Primary
Assemblymember Laura Friedman calls the Bicycle Omnibus Bill (AB 1909) she introduced the “OmniBike Bill.” It’s a bill that includes four different changes to the vehicle code (hence “omnibus”), and you could be forgiven if you find vehicle code updates wonky and boring. But each element of the OmniBike Bill will make life better for people who ride bikes and, taken together, the provisions represent a revolutionary change in the way California treats bicyclists.
Until now, the California vehicle code has generally treated bikes like skinny cars — unless that wasn’t convenient for the people in the fat cars. People on bikes need to cross with cars at intersections. But drivers can squeeze past bike riders without changing lanes. Like cars, bicycles are required to register (but with cities, not the state), and e-bikes, like cars, are banned from bikeways in some places.
But bikes aren’t cars, and when you force bike riders to behave like cars (a practice known as vehicular cycling), only the most aggressive riders (primarily men) will brave the streets on two wheels.
If we want bicycling to be accessible to people of all ages, abilities, and risk tolerances, we must change our laws to improve safety.
The OmniBike Bill will change the rights and rights of way for people on bikes. The bill’s provisions will increase bike access and legalize safe bike riding. Here’s how it will change biking for the better.
Creating a margin of safety: Change lanes to pass
In 2013, California passed a 3-foot passing rule. CalBike advocated for the measure, which made it illegal to breeze past a bike rider with only a few inches to spare. But the 3-foot rule has proven difficult to enforce due to the challenge of measuring the distance between two moving objects. And someone on the driver’s side of a car may have difficulty estimating a 3-foot distance on the opposite side of their vehicle. So the OmniBike Bill tells people driving cars to pass a bike the same way they would a car, by going into the next lane, wherever possible.
Of course, not every driver will obey this law, especially at first. But it will be much easier to ticket offenders, and once this rule is added to driver’s education, new drivers will learn it as part of their training. Eventually, changing lanes to pass a bike could become the default, something drivers do because they see others doing it or because that’s how they get taught to drive. And that’s a world where many more people will feel comfortable on a bike.
To be clear: California defines what can be called an e-bike, and it’s not the same as a Vespa or moped. All e-bikes have a pedal-assist option. There are three classes of e-bikes:
Class 1: Pedal assist only (electric boost only works when the rider pedals), with a top speed of 20 mph
Class 2: Both pedal assist and throttle (to power the bike without pedaling), with a top speed of 20 mph
Class 3: Pedal assist only with a top speed of 28 mph
The OmniBike Bill clarifies where e-bikes can and can’t be prohibited. It will open more bikeways to e-bike riders while allowing them to be banned on hiking and horseback riding trails if desired.
Walk signals are for bikes, too
Many intersections have advance walk signals for pedestrians. That’s a safety measure that allows people on foot to start crossing the street before cars move, so they are more visible to turning vehicles. And there’s a bill working its way through the legislature this year that will require advance walk signals at more intersections, so this safety feature is likely to become more common.
The OmniBike Bill makes it legal for people on bikes to start crossing the street with the pedestrian signal rather than waiting for the light to turn green for cars. It’s a logical move that makes bikes more visible and gives them a head start to claim their space on the street.
No more bicycle licensing ordinances
Many California cities have ordinances requiring people to register or get a license for their bikes. You might be riding illegally right now.
Bike licensing laws are rarely enforced, and most people have no idea they exist. However, as long as these laws stay on the books, police can use them selectively to harass or chase away bike riders that a community considers undesirable. They can be an excuse to target people of color, who often receive much harsher attention from law enforcement than white bike riders.
If the OmniBike Bill passes, municipalities won’t be able to prohibit the operation of an unlicensed bike, though they can still offer voluntary licensing programs. That’s a critical step forward for racial justice.
The OmniBike Bill will make biking safer and more accessible throughout California. It received strong support in the Assembly and is now awaiting a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee. Let your senator know that you support this vital piece of legislation. And stay tuned for a chance to email the governor to ensure that he signs it into law.
May 27 was the deadline for bills to move from one house of the California legislature to the other. Anything that didn’t move by that date is dead for this year, with the exception of two-year bills that made the move last year. At the midpoint, all but two of the bike- and climate-friendly bills CalBike supports have advanced. And one two-year bill we oppose remains stubbornly alive.
As these measures move ahead, we’ll need many voices speaking out for creating more space for bikes on our streets, decriminalizing safe street crossings, forward-thinking transportation planning, and much more. Look for opportunities to take action and sign our list to be the first to know about upcoming votes.
First, the bad news
The Appropriations Committees of both houses wield outsize power over the fate of legislation. Bills over a certain fiscal threshold get placed in the suspense file. If someone doesn’t want to see a bill advance, then it never makes it out of suspense. Any bills left in suspense won’t get a floor vote and won’t advance to the other branch of the legislature.
Unfortunately, two bills that CalBike supported got killed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 1975 would have put more bus shelters on the streets, a welcome change. We hope this is just a temporary setback for a worthy idea.
And AB 2336, which was another try at a speed camera pilot, also ended up stuck in suspense, with no reason given. Speed is what kills on our streets, and speed cameras, if implemented well, could truly enforce posted speed limits. However, most Californians drive, as do most members of the Assembly, and people who drive don’t like to get speeding tickets, so this one is a tough sell. And some progressive advocates worry that speed camera programs could reinforce bias if camera surveillance focused on disadvantaged neighborhoods, leading to increased fines, which would have a disproportionate impact on low-income populations. So this worthy project is dead for another year, but we hope that legislators and advocates will find a version that everyone can live with in the near future.
Bike-share still in danger
AB 371, the Kill Bike-Share Bill, sits where it stopped last June, in the Senate Committee on Insurance. The bill imposes heavy insurance requirements on shared bike and scooter systems, and the cost would end shared micromobility in California as those systems continue to grow in popularity and usefulness. CalBike is committed to promoting bike-share and making it better[link], and we are working hard to defeat this bill.
Although this harmful legislation hasn’t moved yet in 2022, we expect action soon. It’s critical that our elected representatives understand just how unpopular it is. Please tell your senator to oppose AB 371.
CalBike is sponsoring a bill to decriminalize safe, mid-block street crossings (formerly known as jaywalking) and one that will get California communities to build safer, more equitable streets quickly. We’re also including the Bicycle Safety Stop Bill in this category even though we aren’t officially sponsoring it this year because we strongly support that measure and are working to help it through the legislative process.
Stop Ticketing Safe Street Crossings
AB 2147 (Ting) will direct police not to ticket for safe pedestrian mid-block crossings. Ending enforcement of this offense, which was invented by car companies to reserve civic space for car dominance, will reduce opportunities for police encounters that too often become violent for people of color. It passed the Assembly and will now move through committees in the Senate.
SB 932 (Portantino) will require cities to revise the circulation element of their general plans to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and start implementing the changes within two years. The bill has passed the Senate and is currently in the Assembly Local Government and Transportation Committee.
AB 1713 (Boerner Horvath), is a revised version of last year’s campaign to pass the Bicycle Safety Stop that will allow people on bikes who are over 18 to treat stop signs as yields. CalBike is not an official sponsor this year, but we’re strongly supporting this measure. The bill passed the Assembly and will now move through the Senate.
Other critical active transportation bills moved forward
This is a good year for human-powered transportation bills in California. Several other bills that CalBike strongly supports are advancing. Some have jetted ahead, and others will require a huge effort to overcome entrenched opposition from automotive, freeway building, oil, and other special interests.
OmniBike Bill
AB 1909 (Friedman) will change the state vehicle code to facilitate biking across our state. Elements of this legislation include requiring vehicles to switch lanes when passing people on bikes and expanding where it’s legal to ride e-bikes. It’s hard to overstate the significance of the OmniBike Bill. If it passes into law, it will signal that California recognizes that bikes belong on our streets. This measure is already in the Senate Transportation Committee, where it’s scheduled for a vote on June 14.
AB 1778 (C. Garcia) will prohibit any state money from funding or permitting freeway widening projects in areas with high rates of pollution and poverty. This bill is a long shot and it barely squeaked through the Assembly, but it’s a critical measure that recognizes the environmental and societal destruction wrought by building freeways. It would be a significant step toward reversing the state’s emphasis on choking our cities with highways instead of improving public transit and creating complete streets. We will be pushing hard to get this measure to the governor’s desk, and we hope you will too.
Many more active transportation bills have momentum
Several more bills that CalBike supports are moving through the legislature, demonstrating that California legislators recognize that support for active transportation and safer streets is the logical choice.
These bills have moved from the Assembly to the Senate:
Protect California Drivers Act of 2022 SB 1107 (Dodd)
Some of the bills CalBike supports will have a tougher route to passage in their second house. And, even if the legislature does the right thing, Governor Newsom has often vetoed bike-friendly legislation. See the status of all the legislation we’re watching on our 2022 Legislative Watch page and look for opportunities to take action to help grow support for a more bike-friendly California.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/thumb-1.jpg640480Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2022-06-02 16:37:332022-06-02 18:17:51Legislative Update: Status of Active Transportation Bills at the Midpoint
The only convenient choice for most trips in most California communities is the automobile. For door-to-door access, public buses and trains can’t compete. This car-dependent system forces Californians to incur extremely high expenses and miserable traffic as drivers. It leads to severe pollution, bad health outcomes, and dangerous streets.
People in disadvantaged communities, disproportionately Black and brown people, endure the worst consequences. They live on the most dangerous streets, with the worst pollution, and suffer the most severe economic burden of automobile dependence, sacrificing a better quality of life to fill their gas tank and maintain their automobile.
California’s shared micromobility isn’t perfect, but it’s headed in the right direction
Shared micromobility can transform this. High-quality electric bikes can connect people to their destinations quickly and conveniently. Combined with public transit, they can make even long trips fast and easy. If priced like public transit, they will provide affordable and accessible public transportation that is a realistic alternative to the car for most people.
The shared bikes and scooters we see today are just the beginning. These lightweight, affordable devices, combined with public transit, are the future of equitable mobility.
However, there is much that is not right about our shared bike and scooter systems:
They’re too expensive.
They are not safe enough.
They are too often improperly parked, causing a hazard to pedestrians.
All too often, they don’t serve the neighborhoods most in need of additional transportation options.
California must address these problems to expand shared micromobility and provide Californians with convenient mobility to replace their car trips with bike and transit trips. CalBike is committed to this expansion of shared micromobility as essential to our mission of creating equitable communities where bicycling enables people to live a healthy and joyful life.
Unfortunately, California is poised to kill this vision.
Bike-share is under threat
A bill in the Assembly, AB 371, attempts to support pedestrians injured by users of shared bikes and scooters by requiring the system operators — transit agencies, nonprofits, and private corporations alike — to carry an insurance policy to cover damages caused by their users regardless of the fault of the operator. It is unprecedented insurance that will make shared micromobility prohibitively expensive and penalize the very transportation option that can help reduce automobile use and the severe injuries and health damage caused by our over-reliance on cars. It does nothing to address the real problems of shared micromobility and, worse, makes it impossible to address the issue of affordability.
CalBike’s vision for equitable bike sharing systems
California can implement equitable shared micromobility, and at CalBike, we’re working toward that goal. Here are steps to create bike and scooter sharing systems that work for everyone.
1. Subsidize shared micromobility like public transit.
Incorporating shared bikes and scooters into the transit fare can help people access rapid and frequent bus and train lines or serve independently as affordable door-to-door transportation that is more convenient than public transit. Equitable shared micromobility systems will increase transit ridership, reduce automobile use, and reduce the economic burden imposed on low-income Californians with poor public transit. Whether the shared micromobility system is owned and operated by the transit agency or through a public-private partnership, subsidizing shared bike and scooter trips is one of the most cost-effective ways to help people reduce the expense and environmental impact of car use.
2. Make it safer.
Too many streets are still designed for fast motor vehicle traffic at the expense of safety. In California, injuries and fatalities to bicyclists and pedestrians are higher than in most industrialized nations. Cities and counties must expedite the creation of protected bikeways so that people can choose to bike or work for their short trips without fear of getting hit by a distracted or reckless driver.
The problem is not the inherent safety of bicycling or even shared bikes. Data from shared bike systems in the United States show that shared bike users have fewer crashes per trip than riders on privately-owned bikes.
3. Give preference to bikes, including e-bikes.
In a typical work week, an easy ten-minute trip to a transit station and back will generate most of the physical activity that the CDC recommends for health. This intervention, worthwhile for its economic and transportation benefits, will also save Californians millions of dollars in health care costs. The intervention is effective even with the use of electric-assist bikes. Studies show their users also get exercise, and, if the motor-assisted top speed is limited to the speed of a regular bicycle (approximately 17 mph), e-bikes are no more dangerous than traditional bikes.
4. Enforce regulations to ensure safe sidewalks.
Riders need to operate scooters and bikes on sidewalks in most areas in California, and they should park them out of the pathway of pedestrian travel. Carelessly parked scooters and bikes are especially hazardous for people with vision impairments. That was a severe problem when these devices were first dropped on city streets, often without permission from the local authorities. Today, many shared mobility operating permits require users to park their devices on a pole or at a station where they are out of the way and document such safe parking with a photo to end the rental. These regulations are allowed by existing California law (AB 1286, 2020) and should be standard across the state. Most crucially, they must be enforced.
AB 371 includes a provision to require scooters and bike-share companies to identify each vehicle with a unique number in Braille so that vision-impaired pedestrians can report improperly parked devices. That is a simple provision that CalBike supports. However, a better solution is to prevent the hazard in the first place. Sidewalks must always be free of obstacles, including illegally parked cars.
Support equitable shared micromobility because our future depends on it
Everyone deserves to walk wherever they want on safe sidewalks free of hazards and obstacles. They deserve to be able to cross the street without fear of getting hit. Critically, they deserve a future that is not ravaged by climate change. This security is dependent upon a reduction in automobile use. We must reduce traffic to slow speeds, build protected bikeways and better transit, wider sidewalks, and better crosswalks.
Without shared micromobility, we will not reduce Californians’ debilitating dependence upon automobiles. We support the intent of AB 371 to protect pedestrians. As currently drafted, however, it will destroy the potential that shared micromobility has to transform our transportation system to improve the health and safety of everyone who uses our streets.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/44006449071_58830a130d_z.jpg427640Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2022-06-01 17:28:012022-06-02 12:22:22Shared Micromobility: the Future of Equitable Transportation