The legislature may be on summer break, but CalBike is hard at work preparing for the next round of opportunities to advocate for a better California for all. Read on for an update on key legislation we’re sponsoring or tracking, and keep up with our blog for opportunities to get involved.

Get State Employees Rolling: SB 702 (Stern)

This CalBike-sponsored bill expands California’s state employee bike share program, currently limited to just under 100 bikes; SB 702 passed the Senate Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review and is headed to the Appropriations Committee. While the bill was amended to say the state is required to expand bikeshare wherever it’s both feasible and “reasonable” rather than just feasible, we’re excited about the potential expansion of this program.

CalBike is sponsoring this bill because we know that expanding access to bicycles for California’s hundreds of thousands of state employees means getting more cars off the road, promoting bicycling, and helping our neighbors to make healthier choices. Increasing bicycling and reducing fossil fuel use and traffic congestion are critical priorities for our state and bike shares can help to meet those needs. This is an opportunity to help our state’s employees to be part of the transportation system of the future, and CalBike is ready to keep up the fight for a sustainable state vehicle fleet.

Require Qualified Representation: AB 179 (Cervantes)

AB 179 is part of a series of efforts to reform the powerful California Transportation Commission, an executive body with far-reaching impact. Transportation investments affect all Californians, and they often disproportionately burden our lowest-income communities-but the CTC currently has no requirements that it’s appointed commissioners have any experience with important issues like pollution impacts, sustainable and active transportation, or public health. Legislation like AB 179 aims to change that.

This particular bill has evolved from a mandate that the CTC must include representation from experts that live and work in underserved and environmental justice communities to a guideline suggesting that the governor should “use every effort” to ensure diverse and experienced appointments, but CalBike still sees AB 179, now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, as a step in the right direction. The fact that Chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Senator Beall (D-Campbell) forcefully acknowledged that “We need to have a more diverse state transportation commission” is representative of an encouraging shift away from the status quo in transportation decision-making. CalBike agrees and we plan to hold him to ensuring the state follows through on that statement when the next opportunity to appoint diverse representation to the commission comes up.

Free Transit for Students: AB 17 (Holden)

AB 17 creates a free transit pass program for low-income students in middle school through university, enabling students all over the state to get to and stay in school. Investing in student transit programs is an investment in our future. Besides elevating the lifelong potential of our students, these programs can help to improve our transit systems, create lifelong transit users, reduce carbon emissions and traffic congestion, and reduce strain on low-income families.

The bill passed the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee and is headed into the Committee on Appropriations, where it faces a tough fight for funding. The concept of a free transit program is extremely popular but finding a consistent funding source for it is the real challenge.

Hold Cities Accountable: SB 150 (Allen)

The state’s regional planning authorities are required to set climate goals for reducing carbon emissions largely through more efficient transportation and land use development that reduces miles traveled in personal vehicles—but as of right now there is no mechanism for holding our regional agencies accountable to these requirements. SB 150 challenges metropolitan regions to set regional targets that align with the state’s climate change targets, by reducing driving and making it easier to walk, bike, and take transit.

SB 150 passed out of the Transportation and Natural Resources Committees of the Assembly and is headed to Appropriations-but not without being amended to remove references to specific targets for reducing driving. There is still much work to be done in holding regional authorities and their member local jurisdictions accountable to the goals we set as a state.

The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) is a new $250 million (per year) competitive state grant program created under Senate Bill 1 to improve travel in traffic-choked corridors by providing more transportation choices that get people out of their cars. CalBike and our partners are leading advocacy efforts to ensure this program meets its true aim of multimodality.

The language in SB 1 that enacts the SCCP contains strong requirements for projects that encourage land use decisions that support compact infill development and reduce vehicle miles traveled. It also contains the goal of preserving the character of the local communities and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects. Coupled with the restrictions against use of program funds for “general purpose lane expansion” (i.e. your average new freeway lane), and a set of strong scoring criteria for projects, the SCCP provides a new opportunity for regions to tackle their most congested corridors. The SCCP requires regions to move beyond the business-as-usual strategy of building our way out of congestion with more lane-miles of highway, and instead incentivizes sustainable and efficient solutions to congestion that will benefit communities long overburdened by large, dangerous, and unhealthy freeway projects.

However, even though the objectives of the SCCP sound great, smart growth and sustainable communities’ advocates like CalBike cannot just sit back and relax through the implementation phase. The SCCP was designed for interested and affected stakeholders to improve it through the California Transportation Commission (CTC) program development process. Fortunately, CTC staff are poised to lead with a clear intent to promote sustainability in transportation investments. So far, CTC staff have held two SCCP workshops and have set a firm foundation for improving accessibility (people’s overall ability to reach desired services and activities)—rather than just increasing travel speed (mobility)—in our most backed-up corridors.

In particular, advocates have a critical opportunity during this pivotal program development process to ensure the program successfully addresses transportation justice. Disadvantaged and low-income communities of color who are more likely to be non-drivers will be shortchanged if all the SCCP funds go directly into the expansion of freeways (i.e. toll lanes, carpool lanes, managed lanes, freight lanes, etc.) for personal vehicles. The SCCP also needs to avoid any negative community impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to congested corridors that have suffered from pollution, dangerous and crowded streets, and blight while commuters from other parts of the region zoom past.

Overall, the SCCP is a major positive step in the slow transformation of transportation planning.California planners are finally beginning to institutionalize more sustainable and efficient practices to address traffic congestion. And it’s not just our planners that are changing their tune and approaches—several of our elected officials are pushing this change from the policy side. State Assembly Transportation Committee Member Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) stated candidly during a bill hearing in April that adding freeway capacity is a “20th century solution to a 21st century problem”. Her assertion reflects a growing understanding in transportation research and planning that “adding capacity does not decrease congestion—getting people out of their cars decreases congestion”–another of Assemblymember Friedman’s signature remarks.

Draft guidelines for the SCCP are expected to be released by the CTC in mid-October and be finalized by December 2017. Two more workshops will be held in Oakland and Sacramento before the Guidelines are published. As in all SB 1 programs, broad public participation is sorely needed. Community residents, commuters, advocates, and anybody who endures maddening traffic or is impacted by it has a stake in this program. With your help, we can ensure state policy decisions reflect not only Assemblymember Friedman’s visionary comments, but also the broad support of California’s residents and voters for a truly multi-modal transportation system.

The slogan of Senate Bill 1, the act passed in April to increase California’s gas tax, was “fix-our-potholes-first”. However, the freight and goods movement industries—whose heavy trucks are most culpable for said potholes—quietly and indirectly received an approximate $3.3 billion for more than just fixing pavement over the next ten years. Will these billions contribute to making the air cleaner near ports and freeways, reducing carbon emissions from freight, or even repairing damaged roads from heavy-duty trucks near our most polluted low-income communities? Or will the funds continue expanding heavily congested freeways and increasing the output of lethal emissions?

For our state’s decision-makers, it comes down to how to prioritize conflicting concerns and which interests are most vocal. Also, we’re concerned that many decision-makers still have a fundamental misunderstanding that highway expansion will decrease congestion and pollution. Past investment in freeways that are major goods movement corridors have prioritized attempts to relieve congestion and move more trucks over clean, breathable air. From the perspective of CalBike and our allies, it is not an either/or situation. We do not have to trade-off moving goods more efficiently for social equity and pollution reduction. Instead, achieving equitable economic growth of the freight sector while protecting the health of vulnerable communities is possible through comprehensive and innovative solutions.

CalBike is taking an active role in ensuring these new freight funds–a program called the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account–go to healthy, sustainable, equitable, and efficient freight projects. As we discussed on our blog, the dirty air emitted by dirty freight trucks creates a major barrier to safe biking and walking, especially for young children with growing lungs. In fact, most of our transportation system is designed to facilitate goods movement and the wide, fast roadways that result are dangerous or impossible to navigate on foot or bike. This type of transportation and land use planning systematically results in damage, disinvestment, pollution, and safety risks to many communities.

CalBike is leading a coalition to advocate for implementation of the many programs supported by SB 1that prioritizes benefits to vulnerable communities, improves health and clean air, and reduces driving and carbon emissions. This advocacy is nowhere more important than in implementation of the Trade Corridor Program. For the past month, along with our fellow California Cleaner Freight partner Coalition for Clean Air, we wrestled with the difficult legislative process to define the terms of this new trade corridor enhancement program to restrict highway expansion and avoid negative community and environmental impacts on low-income communities of color.

Though we didn’t win everything we were pushing for in the law, we can still influence the process. Next, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has some power to decide how to use this $3.3 billion. The CTC will be leading workshops across the state over the next few months that are important venues to make sure our state and local decision-makers hear and incorporate community needs.

But these workshops aren’t enough to engage broad public participation in shaping the guidelines for SB 1 programs, so in addition to participating in the CTC workshops CalBike and our allies are planning additional outreach to community-based groups, especially representing low-income communities of color, to solicit input.

Please contact Jared@CalBike.org if you or your organization is interested in organizing or attending a local convening so that we can ensure state policy decisions clean up the damage to our air and communities caused by the growing power and profits of freight-based industries.

The Dream Ride staff continues working hard, planning and organizing each day’s route, lodging and activities. This is the second of several posts describing the fruits of those labors: tentative plans for each day on the 2017 Dream Ride. Some details may change between now and October, so stay tuned to this blog or contact the Ride Director Debbie Brubaker for the latest details.

Departing from the overnight stop in Calistoga, Day 3 of the 2017 California Dream Ride will continue following a westward arc of riding through the Dry Creek and Alexander Valley wine regions, arriving in the afternoon at the next overnight in Occidental, a quaint former whistle-stop of a logging railroad town nestled among towering redwoods in the coastal foothills west of Santa Rosa. Along the way, the tour will visit some of the farming and logging towns that have figured in the early days of Northern California’s development: Calistoga (1876), Healdsburg (1867), Guerneville (circa 1870s) and Monte Rio (circa 1870s). While brewpubs, boutiques and wineries give these towns a cosmopolitan feel, they still retain a lot of their historic charm.

Between these towns, acres and acres of vineyards line each side of the roads that the Ride will follow on the day’s journey. West Dry Creek Road after lunch is quintessential Wine Country riding on country roads over rolling hills, old truss span bridges, and overarching oak trees. All told, the Dream Ride will pass well over 100 of the wineries that make this part of California famous. Naturally there are countless tasting options to be explored! Early October is prime harvesting season, so there is apt to be lots of grape picking to see as well.

The final leg of the day’s ride will be west along the Russian River, passing through Rio Nido, Guerneville, and Monte Rio. The forests that surround these towns supplied the redwood and pine used to build the “painted lady” Victorian houses in San Francisco and elsewhere in the Bay Area. At one time, present day Guerneville was known as “Stumptown.” Fortunately, logging here is long gone and the big trees are gradually returning. There are still enough of these tall trees left to provide a nice afternoon’s ride up the Bohemian Highway to the Inn in Occidental.

Background: California Dream Ride was conceived of by CalBike’s Dave Snyder and brought to life by Debbie Brubaker, the ride’s director. It is a fundraiser to support the Coalition’s statewide advocacy efforts and to raise awareness by showcasing the successes of statewide and local efforts to enhance bicycle infrastructure and to increase bicycle safety. The tour is fully supported—all riders do is the ride! This year’s Dream Ride begins in Folsom on October 8th (rendezvous and meet ‘n greet) and ends on October 13th in Oakland (last day of riding and end-of-ride festivities).

Cyclists of all levels are encouraged to take part in the Dream Ride. Stay tuned to this blog, CalBike’s Facebook page, and the Dream Ride web page for more details and overviews of each day’s riding.

When Caltrans moved to BAN bikes on a stretch of Skyline Blvd without public comment, our partners pushed back. Now Caltrans needs your input.

Where Skyline Blvd (State Highway 35) crosses Highway 1 in Daly City, people on bikes have to navigate a dangerous freeway-style interchange. In response to a 2015 tragedy when a rider was struck and killed by a person driving a car, Caltrans considered simply banning bicycles. But this a critical connector for hundreds of people each week—the only reasonable route from San Francisco to key destinations and some epic riding on the San Francisco Peninsula, including the popular 17-mile Crystal Springs bike path.

So our partners in San Francisco and Silicon Valley pushed back, and now Caltrans wants to hear from you. Input like this can help California become a better place to bike.

We’re glad bicycle advocates stood up. This is just one intersection, but it could represent a test case for treatments that could apply on any of hundreds of similar interchanges around the state. Freeway on- and off-ramps are realities of California roadways. So are bicycles. The solution to the problem of navigating dangerous highway ramps cannot be to prohibit bicycles from using the road.

Thanks to the organizing efforts of CalBike partners SVBC and SFBC and your calls and emails, Caltrans is taking a step back and considering more options. They are ready to listen, and now they need to hear from you.

Click here to fill out this short survey and tell Caltrans bikes belong on the road.

We’ve written this letter, and have followed up with a conversation, to communicate the following four points to Caltrans District 4 and Headquarters.

1. We want to see this intersection used as a test case for design solutions that could apply on any of hundreds of similar interchanges around the state. It’s about time we found a safe way to get people on bikes past on- and off-ramps.
2. The design principle should provide for a design that allows riders to ride quickly if they wish to, so that whatever safety feature is implemented, it’s convenient enough to attract (almost) all bicyclists. Otherwise, too many riders will opt to use the road in a vehicular manner, exposing them to dangers.
3. We proposed some specific design solutions, including limiting ramps to a single lane whenever possible, and steering ramp traffic into channels to slow it a little bit and make it more predictable so that people on bikes can more easily find a gap in traffic and cross when safe.
4. While we have a keen interest in seeing a design applied to this intersection that is usable statewide, with regard to the specific solution for this interchange we defer to our local partners in SVBC and SFBC.