The Latest Archives - Page 2 of 60

What to Know About the Next California E-Bike Voucher Application Window

April 15, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has announced a second application window for its E-Bike Incentive Project on April 29. There will be some changes to make the process smoother this time around. Here’s what you need to know about the application process.

What has changed

In the first application window, nearly 100,000 people logged on for a chance to be awarded a voucher toward the purchase of an e-bike. Users waited online until the first 1,500 people in line completed their applications, and then were told that applications were closed.

The new process will give applicants more time to log on and more clarity about their place in line. People who want an e-bike voucher can enter an online waiting room at the E-Bike Incentives Project website between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on April 29.

At 6:00 pm, the waiting room will close and everyone present will be placed in a queue to apply. The order will be determined by randomizing software, not by the time applicants entered the waiting room. You’ll be able to see your place in line and decide if it makes sense to wait. CARB will distribute 1,000 vouchers through the portal in this window. If you’re within the first 2,000 people on the list, it probably makes sense to stick around, in case spots open up if anyone drops off ahead of you.

If you’re not able to apply online because you have difficulty using a computer, you can also apply by mail by contacting the administrator. Mail applications will be randomized in the same way as those through the online portal, giving all applicants the same chance of being able to submit an application.

What hasn’t changed

The basics of the e-bike voucher program remain the same. Only those making 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) or below are eligible for a California voucher. The base voucher amount is $1,750; people living in disadvantaged census tracts and those with incomes at or below 225% of the FPL get an additional $250, for a total voucher amount of $2,000.

In the last application window, the most common issue was that people applied whose income was too high to qualify for the program. That slowed down voucher distribution for those who qualified and cost the program administrative time. The more CARB is forced to spend on administration, the less funding it has for vouchers. If your income from all sources is above 300% of FPL, please don’t apply. You can review the amount of income needed to qualify on a table on the EBIP website here. There are many local e-bike incentive programs with different requirements; we encourage you to look for one of those.

What else to know about California e-bike incentives

In addition to distributing 1,000 vouchers through the online portal, the program is working with community-based organizations (CBOs) throughout the state to connect the populations they serve with e-bike vouchers. CBOs will help CARB identify people who can benefit from this low-cost transportation, as well as provide wrap-around services to help them ride safely and keep their bikes in good working order.

CBOs will be working with their existing populations. Reaching out to a CBO if you’re not already working with the organization will not help you get a voucher.

The administrator has worked to streamline the application process, but it will still take several weeks to verify applications and provide vouchers. As always, patience is a virtue with the California E-Bike Incentives Project.

For other questions, see our e-bike incentive FAQs.

If you’d like to know more, CalBike hosted a webinar to explain the process and answer questions. You can view the recording.

E-Bikes on the Agenda for California Legislature in 2025

April 10, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

CalBike has 14 bills on its legislative watchlist this year, and almost half of them (six) are e-bike regulations. As we have documented repeatedly over the past couple of years, the swift rise in the popularity of e-bikes has led to an equally swift backlash. Local leaders have conflated legal e-bikes with illegal e-motorcycles improperly sold as e-bikes, imposed e-bike restrictions after car drivers killed people riding e-bikes, and generally painted e-bikes as the biggest menace on the roads today. So it’s no surprise that state lawmakers have taken notice, crafting a raft of bills designed to “fix” the “problem.” We would prefer to have just one e-bike bill that could garner bipartisan support; perhaps by the end of the session, legislators will have homed in on an approach to e-bike regulation that all stakeholders can agree on.

We aren’t supporting or opposing any of the e-bike bills at this time, but it’s worth taking a deeper dive into what we might call the E-Bike Slate to understand what regulations and threats to e-bike riding might be coming.

E-bike classification

The e-bike bills introduced this session fall into three categories: e-bike classification, rider regulation, and huh?(more on that third one in a minute). Classification is the most popular category, covering four of the six e-bike bills.

The popularity of e-bikes has led to new companies (and some familiar brands) marketing two-wheeled vehicles that may sort of meet the definition of an e-bike under California law but also violate it. Many of these bikes are sold as Class 2 e-bikes, which have a boost of up to 20 mph either through pedal assist or throttle. However, they can switch to different modes, including Class 3 and “off-road” with impermissibly high speeds, taking them out of compliance with e-bike classification.

Class 2 e-bikes don’t have age restrictions in state law; Class 3 e-bikes can only be operated by people 16 years and older, and all riders must wear helmets. The off-road speeds these bikes are capable of are often much faster than any e-bike is legally allowed to go. So, cleaning up the gray areas in e-bike classification is a good idea. We don’t feel that any of these bills, as currently drafted, fit the bill. But we’re working hard to change that.

One of the classification bills (AB 545, Davies) follows a similar bill from 2024 that clarified California’s e-bike classification system. This bill further defines e-bikes as having fully operable pedals and a motor of 750 watts or less. The purpose of this measure isn’t clear since the vehicle code section that outlines Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes starts with the sentence, “An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.”

The other three classification bills seek to clarify the distinction between legitimate e-bikes, which can’t have an electric assist above 20 or 28 mph, depending on the class, and the many two-wheeled vehicles marketed as e-bikes that can go much faster than that.

SB 586 (Jones) creates a new classification for two-wheeled electric vehicles: eMotos. This new category wouldn’t need to register with the DMV like a motorcycle or moped but also wouldn’t be street legal and wouldn’t have operable pedals. In discussions, there’s broad agreement that many of the vehicles marketed as e-bikes aren’t truly street legal. However, we’re not sure this bill will solve the problem.

CalBike is most hopeful for SB 455 (Blakespear). The bill strengthens existing e-bike regulations and would penalize manufacturers and dealers selling high-speed motorized bikes to underage riders as e-bikes. This would solve one of the biggest problems caused by gray areas in e-bike classification and protect young riders. We are hoping to co-sponsor this bill as we work with the author and various stakeholders through issues with how best to disentangle legal e-bikes from vehicles that shouldn’t be marketed as e-bikes. It’s an example of the complexities of crafting laws that protect the public while not stepping on people’s rights and consumer choice.

AB 875 (Muratsuchi) takes a different approach to motorized cycles illegally marketed as e-bikes: encourage police to confiscate them. We never support laws that ask law enforcement to make judgments and mete out punishments on the fly, and we don’t think this is the right approach to solving the e-bike classification problem. Besides, police officers already have legal justification to impound illegal devices, so we sense this bill would not add much to existing local enforcement efforts.

Who should ride an e-bike?

A focus of much of the concern about e-bike safety has been young riders. Class 3 e-bikes, which have a top pedal-assisted speed of 28 mph, are already limited to riders 16 and above, but Class 1 and 2 e-bikes have no age limits.

Last year, California passed a bill allowing San Diego communities to pilot and study e-bike regulations, including limiting ridership by age. AB 965 (Dixon) would bring a similar pilot to Orange County. The bill would allow Orange County cities to limit Class 1 and 2 e-bikes to riders age 12 and over for a pilot period ending in 2030.

While we think bicycling is excellent transportation for young people, especially where communities have built the safe, protected bikeways CalBike advocates for. We are neutral on this bill and open to evaluating age-based restrictions on electric bikes based on the information collected during this pilot.

Do we really need this?

We’re not sure what the thought is behind AB 544 (Davies). Current law requires all bicycles to have a red rear reflector and more reflectors on the wheels, pedals, and frame. This bill would require e-bikes to have a rear red reflector or light that’s on at all times, visible from 500 feet. That’s one and a half football fields. How big would a reflector, or even a light, need to be to be visible from that distance? Would a light have to be the size of a car light?

While CalBike supports visibility, this measure seems impractical and unnecessary. It also puts the onus for visibility on bike riders, absolving car drivers from responsibility for being aware of other road users and sharing the road responsibly.

Clean RIDES Network Launches in California

April 1, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

Clean RIDES is a multi-state coalition working to make our transportation systems greener and more equitable. CalBike is part of this effort, which involves more than 100 organizations. By creating a network of state-focused organizations supporting the same mission, Clean RIDES seeks to build a powerful, national movement to effect the kinds of change CalBike has worked toward in California for many years.

Transportation decisions are made at the state level

While the current federal regime may seek to wipe bike lanes off the map, the truth is that most transportation decisions, including funding, are made at the state level. Clean RIDES is creating a network of organizations working to influence state transportation policies in a coordinated way.

The coalition will build strength through idea-sharing and support and give a louder voice to the demands for clean transportation options, both at the state and federal levels. The group is committed to using an equity lens and making sure that the voices of the most impacted communities are centered in its policy decisions.

The Clean RIDES Network currently includes seven states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania. The California effort is led by ClimatePlan, a coalition focused on creating a sustainable and equitable California; CalBike is a member of the Advisory Board and actively collaborates on policy work within the coalition. Clean RIDES hopes to add more states to the network as the movement expands.

Next steps for Clean RIDES

The Clean RIDES Network has outlined a five-year, multi-state campaign to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. State networks, including the one CalBike is part of in California, are excited to jump in and start the work.

Clean RIDES is a bold and ambitious effort at a time when we need bold and ambitious ideas to combat climate change and increase transportation equity. CalBike is proud to be a part of this innovative coalition.

Gearing Up for Bike Highways

April 1, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

The Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, one of CalBike’s sponsored measures, would create a pilot to build connected, protected bike networks in two California regions. This sounds exciting, but since California doesn’t have any bike highways yet, it’s helpful to step back and explain the concept.

What is a bike highway?

The most basic definition of a bike highway is a connected, protected bikeway network that allows people to move quickly and safely over longer distances. That might look like a scaled-down version of a car freeway, with limited access, interchanges, and even elevated sections to pass over other roads.

But a bike highway network doesn’t need all the bells and whistles to fulfill its mission of providing safe, swift passage for bike riders. Some communities already have many of the pieces of a bike network and they simply need to be knit together to create a bike highway.

The Ohlone Greenway, a Class 1 separated path that travels through multiple cities, following a right of way under elevated Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tracks and cutting through the middle of blocks beside parks, is an excellent example of what’s possible. It’s identified as part of the East Bay Greenway in a Caltrans study of Bay Area bike highways. The greenway has been extended over time, and there are plans to extend it further south; it could be extended and connected to other protected bikeways, either on- or off-street. To become a fully functional bike highway, the network would need improved street crossings, clear signage, and connections to more of the most common destinations in the region. The Caltrans study details what’s possible and outlines the benefits of building bike highways.

Another example is the LA River Path, an eight-mile Class 1 path that follows the Los Angeles River. The path is slated for expansion and is integral to LA’s plan for a car-free Olympics in 2028.

Other cities have segments that could be built out into bike highways. These might look like pathways through parks, beachside bikeways, rails-to-trails facilities, and protected bikeways on city streets. The key features are connection, safety, and speed.

As with all bicycle networks, the trickiest element is safe street crossings, particularly at busy intersections. Bike highways need intersections where bicycle safety is a primary concern, not a nice-to-have. Protected intersections could include bicycle traffic signals with bike-only phases.

Auckland example

Several years ago, Sam Corbett of Alta Planning + Design gave a presentation on the bicycle highway network in Auckland, New Zealand at the California Bicycle Summit. Auckland has an impressive network of separated bikeways, often with colorful pavement, sometimes elevated to allow continuous passage without navigating intersections.

While the realities of dense urban spaces and funding limitations may not allow California to build beautiful bike highways like those in Auckland, we can take them as an aspirational example. This bill is the first step on that journey.

View Sam Corbett’s presentation about Auckland for some inspiration!

Beautiful Bikeways of Auckland NZ Download

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f2c6YWm3vREpb4uBX-MWoBBD5pXzPiRs/view

New Data Sheds Light on Caltrans Projects

April 1, 2025/by Laura McCamy

CalBike supported the Caltrans Data Bill, SB 695, in 2023. Starting January 1, 2026, the bill requires Caltrans to post information about projects from the prior fiscal year. But first, the new law tasked Caltrans with releasing project stats going back to 2018. CalBike has reviewed the data, which showed Caltrans was reluctant to install protected bikeways while installing more paint-only bikeways.

Caltrans built 554 new highway miles over the period covered by this data, at a time when California needs to reduce, not increase, vehicle miles traveled. At the same time, the agency built just 160 miles of bikeways, more than half of which were Class 3 lanes where bike riders share the lane with motor vehicle traffic.

While the SB 695 data doesn’t provide enough detail to fully understand Complete Streets projects on state routes, this first release of data shows that Caltrans isn’t doing enough to meet California’s goals to increase biking and walking.

Caltrans bikeways prioritized paint over protection

From the 2018/19 fiscal year through 2022/23, Caltrans added 160.37 miles of bikeways on state-controlled roads. Every Caltrans district and every California county saw some amount of Caltrans bike infrastructure, though in some cases, the amount was very small.

The total number of miles is less impressive when you break it down by class. More than half — 93 miles — was Class 3 bikeways. Class 3 bikeways are lanes with shared bicycle/car traffic, often delineated by sharrows. Caltrans also counts shoulder widening as building Class 3 bikeways; it’s hard to know how much of the 93 miles were wider shoulders on rural routes or simply regular travel lanes to be shared with bicyclists.

Another 53.2 miles were Class 2 bike lanes: lanes marked by paint. While reviewing project files for our Incomplete Streets report, we discovered that Caltrans counted the repainting of existing Class 2 bike lanes as adding Complete Streets to a project. We don’t know what percentage of the 53.2 miles were new lanes and what was simply repainting existing lanes.

Class 1 bikeways are off-road paths completely separated from vehicular traffic. Caltrans reported 11.97 miles, or a little less than 3 miles per year in the whole state of California, over the four-year period.

Caltrans built just 2.2 miles of Class 4 bikeways — separated on-street bikeways with physical protection from car traffic. That’s about half a mile per year. Many local governments in our state built more protected bikeway miles during this period.

Bikeway trends over time and space

The pandemic appears to have taken a bite out of Caltrans bike projects. It built a little more than 50 miles of bikeways in 2019 but just 4.4 miles in 2020. By 2023, that number had crept back up to 44.4 miles. The percentage of different classes of bikeway fluctuated over the covered time period, but 71% of the total bikeway miles added in 2023 were Class 3, only slightly less than in 2019.

The geographic distribution of bicycle infrastructure was also uneven. More than half of the Class 3 bikeways were added in just two counties: 37.7 miles in Kings County and 30 miles in San Bernardino County. San Diego County had 14 miles of Class 3. These three counties accounted for 81 of the 93 miles of Class 3 bikeways, likely reflecting specific projects underway during the years in question.

Caltrans added the least bike infrastructure in Merced County over this four-year period: just 0.04 miles of Class 1 path. That’s about 211 feet. The Caltrans District with the fewest miles of bikeway installed was Caltrans District 12, which covers Orange County: 1.1 miles. That included 0.1 miles of Class 1, 0.9 miles of Class 2, 0.1 miles of Class 3, and no Class 4 bikeways.

It’s not possible to draw definitive conclusions from this data, especially without knowing more about the specifics of the projects and what the bikeways actually look like. What is clear from the information we have is that Caltrans rarely built protected bikeways while installing many more miles of paint-only bikeways.

Uneven sidewalks

The data also included sidewalk construction and reconstruction. Over the four-year period of this reporting, Caltrans built 47.9 miles of new sidewalks and reconstructed another 28.9. The pandemic didn’t seem to have as big an effect on sidewalk construction; it went up in 2020 and has bounced up and down in the years since.

There was sidewalk work in every district, with some notable highs and lows. District 12, once again, built the fewest sidewalks, with 0.1 miles of new sidewalks and 1.5 miles reconstructed. Amador County had the fewest sidewalk improvements, just 0.03 miles of new sidewalk. Santa Clara and Solano Counties had no new sidewalks and less than a mile of reconstructed sidewalks.

At the other end of the scale, Los Angeles County got 17.68 miles of new sidewalks and 5.73 miles reconstructed. LA alone accounted for almost a third of the sidewalk construction on state-controlled routes.

Again, it’s hard to draw too many conclusions without reviewing the original project documents, which are not available online. And the report doesn’t quantify other pedestrian elements that may be vital during road repair projects, such as new crosswalks or protected intersections.

Highways keep on truckin’

Caltrans built 554 miles of new highways during this four-year window, a time when major climate disasters were accumulating across California. It’s past time to stop building new highways and spend our transportation resources on other travel modes.

While some of the new miles were ramps and interchanges, almost 40% — 214 miles — were general purpose lanes that will add more vehicle miles traveled, more pollution, and more climate stress.

Almost a quarter of all the new highway building was done in LA County, though the majority of that road building was High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) and toll lanes rather than general purpose lanes. San Bernardino County built the most new general purpose roadway: 62 miles.

More data = good

There are additional tables with information about buildings moved and planned and pending projects. You can find it all at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/asset-management/select-state-highway-system-project-outcomes.

As we get more data from Caltrans, more trends and avenues for improvement will become apparent. The SB 695 reports should, over time, become a helpful resource to track Caltrans’ progress toward focusing on projects that serve all road users.

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

March 27, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

CalBike’s Legislative Watch chart lists three bills we’re sponsoring this year, eight bills we’re supporting, and 15 bills we’re watching. Our position is oppose on only one bill: AB 612, the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill. We watch a lot of bills but generally oppose very few. Here’s a breakdown of the difference and why we do it this way.

What does it mean when CalBike is watching a bill?

Our legislation watch includes all the legislation that touches on our mission to bring joyful, safe biking and walking to all Californians. Bills land on our watchlist for one of three reasons:

The bill language hasn’t been fully fleshed out, and we’re waiting for more information to find out whether we support it or not.
We are neutral on a bill. We don’t think it will advance our mission, but it probably won’t harm it either.
We don’t support the measure, but it doesn’t rise to the level where we would oppose it.

We keep an eye on the progress of watchlist bills as they move through the legislative process, but we don’t attend hearings to testify or send letters in support or opposition. Over time, some of those bills may move to our Active Transportation Slate — our support list. On rare occasions, we might decide to oppose a watchlist bill.

Why doesn’t CalBike oppose many bills?

When we take a position opposing a bill, that means we’re actively working to defeat or amend it because we think the bill, as written, will do harm. In the example of the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill, we’re concerned because of the history of fire departments opposing new infrastructure that will increase safety for bike riders. Our allied bicycle coalitions feel strongly about this issue, and we believe standing up against it will lead to a better outcome.

Even so, opposition is a tricky matter. The author of AB 612, Assemblymember Chris Rogers, is a champion for active transportation in his district. We work to maintain positive relationships with many legislators, not just the core group of reliable bike champions. A look at this year’s legislative watch (or that of any past year) shows a range of authors of excellent bills. California legislators bring a diversity of perspectives that enrich our legislative agenda; we want to keep as many doors open as possible.

Opposing a bill might mean working to defeat it, but more often, it involves working with the author’s office and with various committees that will vote on it to suggest revisions. In the case of the fire department bill, we hope to incorporate concerns from the bike and safe streets community, along with fire prevention. We believe street safety and fire safety aren’t incompatible, and while we might not support this bill in the end, moving our position from oppose to watch would be a victory.

Looking Back Five Years: Biking During COVID

March 20, 2025/by CalBike Staff

We all remember where we were in March 2020: hunkered down at home or going out to essential jobs — wondering what would happen next and how to keep ourselves and the people we cared about safe. One silver lining: a bicycling boom thanks to quiet streets mostly free from traffic. The pandemic accelerated the Slow Streets movement and showed many more people what traffic-calmed neighborhoods could feel like.

During those early months, CalBike sprang into action. And many of our COVID campaigns have fed into our ongoing advocacy. Here’s what we’re reflecting on five years later.

Bike shops are essential businesses

With gyms closed and the need for outdoor exercise, many more people started biking. To keep their bikes moving, they needed bike shops for parts and repairs. Yet, in the early days, when only essential businesses were allowed to stay open, bike shops were closed.

CalBike worked hard to get bike shop employees classified as essential workers. Within a few weeks, we succeeded, and bike shops were able to support the burgeoning biking boom.

We continue to support local bike shops, championing their inclusion in the Electric Bicycle Incentive Project. And we’ve advocated for the California Air Resources Board to incorporate community bike shops, which offer classes, DIY repairs, and low-cost options to help people keep their bikes in good running order, into the program.

Bike exchange

Another challenge of the early days of the pandemic was to provide bikes for people who couldn’t afford to buy one. Bike Match stepped up to meet this challenge, connecting people with bikes they no longer used to people who wanted a bike. In some cases, volunteers repaired neglected bikes, sending them to their new owners in good working order. It was one of the many examples of kindness during that fraught time, and CalBike helped get the word out.

While many Bike Match programs have wound down, community bike shops, bicycle kitchens, and many community groups continue to match donated bikes with people who need them.

A template for creating Slow Streets

Many California communities created temporary Slow Streets during the pandemic. A Slow Street is limited to local traffic, making the street a safe place to play, walk, or ride a bike. CalBike spoke to local advocates from Oakland about that city’s Slow Streets program, using it as a model for others who wanted their community to follow suit.

The Slow Streets movement has only gained momentum in the last five years. While some pandemic Slow Streets have been removed, others have been made permanent, and local advocates have been working toward Slow Streets networks. CalBike has sponsored and supported bills to bring down vehicle speeds and introduce slow zones, including slow school zones bills and AB 43, which allows communities more latitude to reduce speed limits.

Quick-build to bring much-needed infrastructure online

CalBike’s support for quick-build began before 2020, but the pandemic was a moment when we needed much more safe infrastructure on an accelerated time schedule. It was also a time when we proved we could make big changes very fast, so it was a great moment to highlight quick-build. We partnered with Alta Planning + Design to create a quick-build guide. Our Quick-Build Bikeway Design Guide remains a vital resource today.

CalBike continues to advocate for quick-build, and many municipalities have adopted these methods to quickly deal with dangerous streets and intersections. This year, we’re sponsoring the Caltrans Quick-Build Pilot Bill, AB 891, which would create a pilot to test quick-build techniques on state-controlled roadways.

The pandemic showed we could work together, make sacrifices, and support each other in ways we couldn’t have imagined. It also reconnected many people with the simple pleasure of spending time outdoors, of riding a bike around their neighborhood or around the county. We hope we never go through something like that again, but five years on, we can see some positive things that came out of a dark time.

CalBike Opposes Bill Giving Fire Departments More Control of Bikeways

March 19, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

Response time and access for emergency responders are critical for safety. But, all too often, fire departments see the elements of street design that make our shared spaces safer for people biking and walking as barriers to fast response. Speed humps, protected bikeways, narrower lanes, and protected intersections that slow vehicle turning movements are among the features sometimes opposed by firefighters, without evidence that these features measurably slow response times. So CalBike, along with Streets for All and many local street safety advocates, opposes the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill, AB 612.

Firefighters are not traffic engineers

Fire codes requiring a street width of 20 to 26 feet have been used to oppose bike lanes that would narrow the vehicular space less than those widths, though often, the roadway space usable by fire vehicles would remain the same. With wildfires now more commonly encroaching on dense neighborhoods, this concern is heightened.

However, many older neighborhoods were built with narrow streets. Research on the correlation between street width and urban fire risk is sparse but seems to indicate that fire response times are shorter in dense, urban neighborhoods than in suburbs with wide streets.

While access to a fire is crucial, it’s unclear why bikeways would create impediments while the many other things taking up space on the street — parked cars, dumpsters, etc. — do not. Add to this the fact that the majority of calls firefighters respond to are medical emergencies rather than fires, and it would seem like bikeways, which slow vehicle speeds and reduce injuries and fatalities for all users, would be a benefit rather than a problem.

The right way to approach fire and street safety

Fire department concerns should be carefully considered when making changes to the layout of a street. However, uninformed opposition shouldn’t derail well-thought-out plans to make our shared space safer and more appealing for people biking and walking.

The Increase Fire Department Authority Bill would expand the veto power of fire departments on new road projects. This would force all California communities to consider access for fire vehicles first and road safety second, even though many more people die or are injured by traffic violence than by fires.

Providing fire departments with an additional poorly defined and poorly understood method of vetoing roadway safety projects will ultimately slow down or halt the shift toward safer roads in California’s cities. Fire departments have neither the resources nor the expertise to design streets and will have to rely on transportation departments to implement engineering changes.

There is a better way. Last year, the City of Berkeley created a street trauma prevention position within its fire department. That person will be responsible for mediating between the needs of vulnerable road users for safer streets and the access needs of first responders. It’s a bold and creative approach that could get fire departments beyond “no” to a more nuanced understanding of and approach to street safety.

CalBike opposes AB 612 as written but looks forward to working with the proponents. We hope to change the measure to one that supports a holistic approach to street safety. Today, CalBike, along with almost 30 allied organizations, sent the letter below, explaining our opposition to the bill unless it’s amended.

March 19, 2025 AB 612 Opposition Letter Download

California Legislators Stand Up for the Active Transportation Program

March 18, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

The Active Transportation Program (ATP) provides one of the only statewide funding sources dedicated to biking and walking infrastructure projects. It is chronically underfunded, receiving far more excellent applications than it can greenlight, and recent cuts have made the situation even more dire.

Now, 13 senators and assemblymembers have signed on to a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. They are throwing their support behind the campaign to restore $400 million taken from the ATP in 2024.

Deep cuts to bike infrastructure

The ATP was targeted for cuts by the governor in the past two tight fiscal years. In 2023, legislators were able to restore funding for this program, which is one of California’s most equity-focused transportation programs and also one that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by making biking, walking, and taking transit safer and more appealing.

In 2024, legislators were only able to restore $200 million of the $600 million originally cut from the program. That allowed Cycle 7 of ATP grants to move forward, but the reduced funds meant that only 13 projects got funding, and local communities are rethinking their reliance on the ATP.

A demand to restore funding

Last year’s budget deal between the governor and the legislature called for restoring the $400 million cut from the ATP if future funds became available. CalBike and our allies have campaigned for the restoration of those funds, and that’s exactly what the letter signed by these legislators asks for. They note that $400 million could fund an additional 36 high-scoring projects from the ATP’s Cycle 7.

It’s rare for legislators to go on the record with a demand like this, and we commend them for supporting active transportation. If any of these legislators represents you, please send them a message thanking them.

Catherine Blakespear, Senate District 38

Damon Connolly, Assembly District 12

Mike Fong, Assembly District 49

Mark Gonzalez, Assembly District 54

Mike Gipson, Assembly District 65

John Laird, Senate District 17

Liz Ortega, Assembly District 20

Blanca Pacheco, Assembly District 64

Nick Schultz, Assembly District 44

José Solache, Assembly District 62

Esmeralda Soria, Assembly District 27

Tom Umberg, Senate District 34

Chris Ward, Assembly District 78

Budget Request Letter ATP Download

National Bike Summit (open thread)

March 13, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike’s executive director, Kendra Ramsey, attended the League of American Bicyclists’ National Bike Summit, March 11-13, 2025. She sent us short updates from the Summit, which we posted in this open thread.

Thursday, March 13

Closing plenary

The closing plenary of the National Bike Summit featured one of the top transportation safety officials in the country, Chair Jennifer Homendy of the National Transportation Safety Board. Here are some of her words:

“We shouldn’t need stuff to feel safe. We can have all the stuff out there and it won’t matter; it just takes one,” she shared on the amount of gear Americans are expected to use while biking and walking to feel safe. “Safety is a right every road user should be able to expect. But the tragic reality is our system is failing.”

She continued: “Every single death, every single injury, is 100% preventable.”

She also discussed technology that can help create a safe system which protects all road users, including intelligent speed assist. She noted that it is no one’s right to break the law or take someone’s life.

She closed saying, “Anyone who can create a safer system can and should do so now.”

While I’ve been gone, my father in law has been taking my daughter out on her bike!

The final day of the National Bike Summit started with a panel on Responding to the Current Political Environment, which was both sobering and hopeful. Speakers suggested we filter out the noise and respond to the real challenges we face as a movement. The “noise” includes things like the information yesterday that any discretionary finding with the phrase “bike lane” will be frozen and reviewed. The real challenges include the “user pay, user benefit” model, which is being uplifted, and the false argument that bicyclists don’t pay taxes and shouldn’t be served by the transportation system.

Speakers highlighted that active transportation and healthy, prosperous communities are bipartisan issues, and that the reframing we may need to do to continue to secure funding is nothing new (wording changes with different leadership, so we’ve done this before!). If you ask most people if they think Americans should pay half of their income on housing and transportation, they would say no. Accordingly, we should be re-shaping our communities to meet the needs of our neighborhoods and our nation.

My next sessions cover the new AASHTO and NACTO bike guides, so I won’t bore you all with wonky details!

Wednesday, March 12

Another lobby day photo: most of the California folks from the evening reception on the Hill.

Lobby Day Part 2

I met with staff from Congresswoman Matsui’s office this afternoon (who represents Sacramento, where I live). We stressed the need to defend the funding of already awarded bike projects, and fight for active transportation funding in the next transportation reauthorization. They shared that with the current climate, having Republican support for our projects is more critical than ever, and suggested folks in our communities reach out to their republican Congresspeople to ask for critical bike projects to continue to be funded — especially those that have been frozen!

Lobby Day Part 1

We started the day with the Congressional Bike Ride, led by the Chair of the Congressional Bike Caucus, Mike Thompson of California’s District 4. He spoke about the importance of bicycling, and shared his motto “the bike is the cure.”

The California delegation regrouped at the Bike Lobby Day headquarters, then headed out for multiple meetings. I accompanied Anya McCann of North Natomas Jibe (@Jibewithus) to meet Congressmember Thompson outside of a Ways and Means Committee hearing. He was eager to hear how the Congressional Bike Caucus can be more helpful to the bike movement, and we discussed the threats to funding existing and future active transportation projects.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by California Bicycle Coalition (@calbikeorg)

Tuesday, March 11

Wednesday advocates from across California will be meeting with our elected representatives to share the successes of federal active transportation funding, and ask for support in continuing this critical support for our communities.

… more to come!

California delegation, National Bike Summit 2025

Bicycle Friendly Communities have twice the ridership of all communities in the US. -Bill Nesper, ED of the League of American Bicyclists

Americans of all backgrounds want stronger, healthier communities — Bill Nesper … and bicycling makes our communities stronger and healthier

Wes Marshall, author of Killed by a Traffic Engineer:

You can take zero transportation classes and graduate as a professional engineer. You can’t build the kind of streets that encourage people to walk or bike.

“Factor of Safety” mentality: engineers design so that “9 out of 10 drunk orangutans would survive a crash.” Wide clear zones protect the most out of control drivers by placing bicyclists and pedestrians right in the clear zone, where the drivers will crash.

Measuring fatalities by VMT makes us think roads are getting safer, but looking at it by population shows the true risk (exposure metric). Measuring based on VMT comes from a manual a car-maker produced, not based on any scientific reasoning.

Discussed the ineffectiveness of education campaigns when our roads are built for speed and the safety of car drivers. (Eye ball heads is a campaign from Colorado to get peds to make eye contact with drivers before crossing).

Tim Oey, me, and Justin Hu-Nguyen talk bike education in school at lunch.

Downtown protected bikeway tour, led by several staff from the District Department of Transportation. DC was planned by L’Enfant to have very wide streets for grandeur, which today results in the ability for road width to be repurposed for bikes. The protected bikeways in the downtown core form a comfortable network which has expanded steadily over the past decade. Many are two-way, complete with bike signalization. They’re working to do more permanent concrete/pour in place curbing instead of flex posts to add better protection with less need for maintenance.