CalBike
  • About
  • Advocacy
    • 2025 Legislative Watch
    • Keep Bike Highways Moving
    • Support the Quick-Build Pilot
    • Sign-On Letters
  • Resources
    • News
    • Report: Incomplete Streets
    • Bicycle Summit Virtual Sessions
    • California Bicycle Laws
    • E-Bike Resources
    • Map & Routes
    • Quick-Build Bikeway Design Guide
  • Support
    • Become a Member
    • Business Member
    • Shop
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
  • About
  • Advocacy
    • Legislative Watch
    • Invest/Divest
    • Sign-On Letters
    • Report: Incomplete Streets
    • Bike the Vote
  • Resources
    • News
    • California Bicycle Laws
    • E-Bike Resources
    • Map & Routes
    • Quick-Build Bikeway Design Guide
  • Support
    • Become a CalBike Member
    • Business Member
    • Shop

Tag Archive for: bike lanes

Bakersfield Convenes Grand Jury to Investigate Bike Lanes

June 3, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

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

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

The Civil Grand Jury

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

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

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

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

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

The negative findings can be summarized as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens next

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

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

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

https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Central-Valley-Bikeways-Project-Bakersfield.png 1002 1146 Kendra Ramsey https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.png Kendra Ramsey2025-06-03 10:16:212025-06-03 11:57:10Bakersfield Convenes Grand Jury to Investigate Bike Lanes

Bikeway Removals Must Stop

February 25, 2025/by Laura McCamy

Mary Daval from Culver City and Michael Swire from San Mateo contributed to this post.

N

Getting approval and funding to build new bikeways can be an uphill battle. However, once a lane or bike path is approved and installed and people get to experience enhanced safety and traffic calming for all road users, it’s rare for cities to take bike lanes out. Unfortunately, two California cities may be doing just that. 

“When they go low, we go local” in Culver City

In 2021, Culver City got funding from a Metro Active Transportation (MAT) grant to help fund a project called Move Culver City. The stated goal of the project was to “create mobility options for everyone.” The project removed a lane of car traffic from Culver Boulevard and added a dedicated bus lane and a bike lane.

In 2023, a new city council voted to modify the project to add back the removed car lane. They accomplished this by taking out the protected bike lane and creating a shared bike and bus lane, a solution that negates gains for both biking and transit. 

The ostensible reason for ripping out the bike lanes and increasing car space was congestion. Now that the removal is complete in what officials call Move 2.0, local advocates report that congestion is just as bad during peak hours and drivers move at freeway speeds during off-peak times. 

Culver City advocate Mary Daval said, “We’re so far from Vision Zero. We’re so far from safe streets. We know terrible things have happened on the Move corridor.”

The MAT grant could be reduced by around $500,000 if Culver City maintains the project in its current configuration without protected bike lanes. However, residents recently elected a new city council that’s more friendly to active transportation. Since the project is a quick build, advocates hope that the original configuration can be restored. They are looking for crash and traffic data to point the way to an evidence-based plan for safer streets.

Local advocates aren’t giving up, despite a federal administration that is unfriendly to active transportation, citing a Culver City saying: “When they go low, we go local.”

Pedaling backward in San Mateo

San Mateo’s City Council recently decided to pursue removal of half a mile of separated bike lanes on Humboldt Street. The bike lanes offer greater safety for people biking and walking on a street known as one of the least safe in the city for vulnerable road users. The bike lanes provide access to multiple schools serving 6,000+ students and were paid for with a federal grant. Humboldt is in an equity-priority neighborhood, with almost 20% of residents unable to afford the high cost of auto ownership.

San Mateo could spend up to $3 million to rip out these bike lanes — money that could have been better spent on the dozens of projects that remain on hold in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. It’s sad that there is never enough money (at the state or local level) to build bikeways, but there is always funding to expand car storage. 

There is still time to save the San Mateo bike lanes. You can sign the petition and contact Move San Mateo to find out how to get involved.

Bike advocate Mike Swire told CalBike: “We are extremely disappointed in the San Mateo City Council’s decision to potentially spend millions of taxpayer dollars to rip out critical safety infrastructure next to several schools, in an Equity Priority Area where 20% of residents don’t own cars and the streets have the highest crash rates in the city.”   

Swire added, “Meanwhile, San Mateo just saw its third vulnerable road user die in the past five months.  Why should free car storage on public streets take priority over safety for those who bike and walk to get around?” 

CalBike supports advocates in their efforts to save these critical bike lanes. While most of our work is at the state level, we sometimes partner with local advocacy groups to provide support on issues of statewide significance. We hope removing bikeways doesn’t become a trend across California.

https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Bike-Lane-Closed.jpg 3024 4032 Laura McCamy https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.png Laura McCamy2025-02-25 16:17:042025-03-07 11:00:56Bikeway Removals Must Stop

Senate Advances Better Bikeway Design Guidelines

June 12, 2019/by Laura McCamy

The Better Bikeway Design Bill (AB 1266 – R. Rivas) moved forward in the Senate Transportation Committee yesterday, after passing the Assembly in mid-May. The bill provides important bikeway design guidelines for planners and public works departments.

Bike lanes often disappear at intersections, which are the site of most collisions and greatest confusion for all users of the road. The Better Bikeway Design Bill directs Caltrans to develop and embed better guidance into its design guidelines for where to place bike lane markings at intersections with turn lanes for automobiles.

“This common sense bill is another piece in our ongoing campaign to work with Caltrans to develop the nation’s best bikeway design guidance,” said CalBike Executive Director Dave Snyder. Snyder testified at the hearing yesterday to support the bill, which inspired an exchange with Chairman Beall about the Dutch reach and the dangers of the door zone.

The next step for the Better Bikeway Design Bill is to move through the Senate Appropriations Committee.

https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/bikeway-design-guidelines-for-intersections.jpg 465 620 Laura McCamy https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.png Laura McCamy2019-06-12 16:10:302019-06-12 17:18:01Senate Advances Better Bikeway Design Guidelines

CalBike Moves Bike-Friendly Bills Forward in Sacramento

May 14, 2019/by Laura McCamy

Two important bills for better biking are moving forward in the California legislature. Bike-friendly legislation continues to advance, thanks to the work of CalBike and our partners to keep up the pressure.

Bike-friendly turn lanes bill passes with bipartisan support

AB 1266, introduced by Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), passed on the Assembly floor on May 13, by a vote of 66-0. The next step for this bill is the Senate. We are optimistic that it will be passed into law later this year.

The measure requires Caltrans to develop new bike lane design guidance for planners and engineers. This guidance would facilitate a typical and safe maneuver by people on bicycles: going straight through an intersection via the left portion of a right-turn lane. Currently, design guidance for these features is not included in the state’s official Highway Design Manual. Without guidance, it is difficult for planners to include these markings in street design. The lack of guidance makes it hard for bike riders to safely navigate straight through at an intersection with a turn lane.

AB 1266 resolves these problems. It clarifies the legality of the commonsense position that bicyclists take in the left side of a right-turn lane. The bill also requires the Department of Transportation to develop designs to facilitate this maneuver. 

E-bike vouchers near a vote

SB 400 will add vouchers for e-bikes and bikeshare memberships to a program that helps low-income Californians trade polluting cars for green transportation. The bill has passed out of committee. It heads for a vote on the Senate floor on Monday, May 20.

This bill, introduced by Senator Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), is an important step toward recognizing bicycles as part of the clean transportation revolution. The voucher program helps bring transportation justice to California streets, a goal that CalBike strongly supports.

You can help ensure victory for SB 400. Raise your voice before the vote on Monday.

What you can do:

Contact your state senator and urge him or her to support SB 400. You can find your senator here.

Join Senator Umberg on Saturday morning, May 18, in Long Beach for a celebration of SB 400. Learn about e-bikes and bikeshare and support the bill’s passage through the Senate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/YUBA_Boda_V3_Europe_02_hires-1.jpg 1280 1920 Laura McCamy https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.png Laura McCamy2019-05-14 17:39:022019-05-16 15:18:29CalBike Moves Bike-Friendly Bills Forward in Sacramento

Latest News

  • California State Capitol
    CalBike’s Legislative Agenda at the Halfway PointJune 11, 2025 - 2:56 pm
  • Complete Streets bill passes
    CalBike Works with Caltrans to Move Complete Streets ForwardJune 11, 2025 - 2:48 pm
  • California highway boondoggles
    California’s Budget Prioritizes Freeway Expansion Over Safe StreetsJune 9, 2025 - 5:00 pm
Follow a manual added link

Get Email Updates

Follow a manual added link

Join Calbike

  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to X
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to Mail
  • Link to Instagram

About Us

Board
Careers
Contact Us
Financials & Governance
Local Partners
Privacy Policy
Staff
State & National Allies
Volunteer

Advocacy

California Bicycle Summit
E-Bike
Legislative Watch
Past and Present Projects
Report: Incomplete Streets
Sign On Letters

Resources

Maps & Routes
Crash Help and Legal Resources
Quick-Build Bikeway Design Guide
Report: Complete Streets
All Resources

Support

Ways to give
Become a Member
Donor Advised Funds
Donate a Car
Business Member

News

Blog
CalBike in the News
Press Releases

© California Bicycle Coalition 2025

1017 L Street #288
Sacramento, CA 95814
© California Bicycle Coalition 2025

Scroll to top