calbike insider Archives

CalBike Insider: Following Up on the Complete Streets Bill

June 26, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

CalBike does a lot of behind-the-scenes work to encourage state agencies to develop better policies and to follow up on the implementation of bills passed in prior years. One law we’re following closely is SB 960, the Complete Streets Bill. CalBike worked tirelessly for almost a decade to pass a Complete Streets requirement on state roads; now that it’s law, we continue to work with Caltrans to ensure that it’s properly implemented.

The devil is in the details

At our meeting with Caltrans on June 4, 2025, we were encouraged by the staff’s willingness to work with us and the progress made on several fronts in improving the agency’s Complete Streets implementation.

However, there are two areas where we’re not seeing much movement, so we followed up with a letter to California State Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin and Caltrans leadership outlining our concerns.

Transit priority

One of the requirements in the 2024 Complete Streets Bill is that Caltrans prioritize projects and project elements that improve the speed and efficiency of public transit. Transit is a vital element of California’s sustainable transportation transformation, providing connections that allow people biking and walking to go farther.

We are concerned that Caltrans doesn’t yet have a director’s policy or design guidance for transit priority facilities. These are essential first steps needed for planners and engineers to include transit features in upcoming Caltrans projects. We urge the agency to move quickly to put these elements in place.

Encroachment permits

One of the roadblocks to safe biking and walking infrastructure is the agonizingly slow pace at which Caltrans approves encroachment permits. Local communities need these permits from Caltrans when a project on local streets crosses or overlaps with a state-controlled right-of-way. Many state routes serve as local streets, and freeway on and off ramps dot urban landscapes, often creating safety hazards for people using active transportation. Slow permitting can hold up projects or discourage local governments from planning infrastructure upgrades that touch Caltrans roads.

The Complete Streets Bill calls for faster permitting for Complete Streets projects that intersect state routes. So far, Caltrans has not taken the necessary steps to implement this high-priority element of the new law. We hope to see the agency act with urgency to put staff in place to make this happen in the very near future.

SB 960 Implementation Follow-Up Download

CalBike Insider: Design Guidance on Class IV Bikeways

June 9, 2025/by Laura McCamy

Caltrans issues Design Information Bulletins (DIBs) that set the parameters for specific types of facilities on the state highway network. DIB-89 provides guidance on how to build Class IV bikeways. Class IV lanes are on-street bikeways separated from car traffic by some type of physical barrier. CalBike’s analysis of Caltrans data found that, although protected bikeways have been legal in California since 2015, Caltrans added almost no Class IV lane miles between 2018 and 2023.

Caltrans first issued DIB-89 in 2018 and updated it in 2022. It’s now preparing to do another update of this design guidance. Later this month, the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (CWBTAC), which advises Caltrans on matters related to active transportation, will have an opportunity to provide feedback on DIB-89 to inform revision later this year. Kendra Ramsey, CalBike’s executive director, sits on the CWBTAC, so we will be able to comment. We are working on our own comments, but want our supporters to have an opportunity to weigh in as well.

DIB-89 is important because it will govern how Caltrans implements Class IV bikeways, which are the safest on-street bikeways and proven to reduce injuries for all road users. Often, local agencies also look to Caltrans guidance to inform how they construct facilities on local roads. The design guidance could encourage or discourage the use of Class IV lanes, depending on how it’s written.
This is very deep in the weeds, but we don’t think that only traffic engineers should weigh in on something that could have a profound impact on how we all get around. We’ve put the current version of DIB-89 into our Google Drive and opened it for comments. We invite you to read it and add comments by June 23 so we can read them before the meeting. CalBike wants to bring as much feedback as possible to the CWBTAC meeting at the end of this month, so we are happy to hear what you think should be changed.

Inside the Black Box of Appropriations

April 30, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

This post was originally published on May 10, 2023. It was updated on April 30, 2025.

In May, California’s appropriations committees wield their influence in the legislative process, as the state’s budget begins to come into focus. Appropriations committees in both the Senate and Assembly have outsize power and can affect the passage of a bill in unexpected ways. Here’s a look behind the scenes.

Kill bill

A recent CalMatters investigation found that, in the 2023-24 two-year legislative session, 2,043 bills didn’t make it to the governor’s desk. Only 25 of those were voted down; the rest died in committee, many of them in Appropriations.

If a California senator or assemblymember wants to kill a bill, one of the sneakier ways to do so is in the legislative appropriations committees. One member with the ear of the appropriations chair can get a bill put into the committee’s “Suspense File,” possibly never to return.

What’s behind this seemingly undemocratic quirk of California’s legislature, and what can we do about it?

What is the appropriations committee?

In both the California State Senate and Assembly, as legislation moves through the process, any bill that requires expenditures over a certain threshold or has any fiscal impact will advance to their respective appropriations committees. The committees must approve any additional costs before the bill goes to a full vote.

How a bill gets killed in Appropriations — the Suspense File

Led by the Senate and Assembly appropriations committees, any legislation that meets a certain fiscal threshold will be placed in the Suspense File (cue ominous music). Generally, if the cost of a bill is determined to be $50,000 or more to the General Fund, or $150,000 or more to a special fund, that bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Many bills stay in the Suspense File until the fiscal deadline passes, then disappear from the legislative process entirely. The Suspense File was developed as a mechanism for slowing the process and giving legislators a way to consider all the bills that are going to put significant pressure on the budget.

What really is the Suspense File?

The Suspense File is among the most opaque and secretive practices at the Capitol, and it allows legislative leaders to not only shelve proposals that are too expensive but also more quietly dispatch those that are controversial or politically inconvenient. It’s well known at the state Capitol that powerful legislators can use the Suspense File as a political tool to keep controversial bills from reaching the Assembly or Senate floor — typically with no explanation, and often without a public vote.

Coming back from the dead: moving bills out of the Suspense File

A bill still has a fighting chance until the Suspense File hearing, when the appropriations committees consider all the bills in the file and decide which get to move on for debate. Lobbyists, legislators, and constituents play an active and important role in deciding which bills move forward.

How CalBike fights for bills we support, with your help

Like any other civic process, shedding light and making noise can influence the course of a bill in Appropriations. When one of CalBike’s bills goes into the Suspense File, we work behind the scenes to convince key legislators to move it forward. We also ask our members to send emails and make calls to support the bill.

Sometimes that works, and sometimes a good bill dies in appropriations. Knowing how the process works helps us fight for measures that improve biking, equity, and joy. We couldn’t do it without your help.

Which bills can you help get off suspense this year?

Our two priority bills, the Quick-Build Bill (AB 891, Zbur) and the Bike Highways Bill (AB 954, Bennett), could be placed on suspense in May. You’ll find actions you can take to move these critical bills and others forward on our Bike Month Action page.

CalBike Insider: Digging into the State Highway System Management Plan

April 16, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

The State Highway System Management Plan (SHSMP) “presents a performance-driven and integrated management plan for the State Highway System (SHS) in California,” according to its webpage. Every other year, Caltrans presents the SHSMP to the California Transportation Commission. CalBike dug into the sections on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and submitted comments, part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that Caltrans adheres to the requirement to build Complete Streets passed in SB 960.

Good news and bad news for biking and walking

The 2025 draft SHSMP outlines the 2026 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) performance targets for biking and walking infrastructure on the state highway system, which includes many local routes that double as community streets used by all travel modes. The clarity in this reporting gives CalBike and other advocates an opportunity to speak up in advance to pressure Caltrans to better serve people using active transportation.

For sidewalks, the report shows 31 miles of repair for existing sidewalks and 38 miles of new sidewalks in 2026. That’s a decent amount of sidewalk work, and we’re glad to see Caltrans prioritizing the safety and comfort of pedestrians.

The 2026 SHOPP target is to repair 5 miles of existing Class I bikeways, which are off-road bike paths. The agency also plans to fix 20 miles of existing Class II bike lanes, which are designated by paint only. There’s no plan to rehab Class III (shared bike/car lanes, which are no longer recommended in Caltrans guidance) or Class IV protected on-street bikeways.

Caltrans plans to build 210 miles of bikeways, a significant number. Of those, 15 miles will be Class I and 44 will be Class IV. The Class IV bikeways are particularly significant: CalBike’s research found that Caltrans has rarely included Class IV bikeways in its projects, often downgrading to Class II when Class IV is recommended, so this is a welcome goal.

Unfortunately, 75% of the planned new bikeways on state-controlled streets are Class II. Class II lanes, particularly next to the high-speed vehicular traffic often found on state routes, do not provide adequate protection for people on bikes and won’t encourage people to choose bike riding over driving a car. Plus, although the SHSMP doesn’t include any Class III lanes, Caltrans will still add them to its projects.

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.

CalBike Insider: From State Law to Local Implementation

February 19, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike’s work may seem removed from local efforts to build safer streets, but state laws have very real and direct — though sometimes invisible — effects on local infrastructure. In this Insider, we take a look at how state laws filter down to the local level and the real-world impacts of some laws CalBike helped pass.

Changing state law

Getting a bill through any legislative body has been compared to sausage-making. It’s a messy process, and what starts out as a strong bill can be weaker or even counterproductive by the time the legislative subcommittees get through with it. CalBike works with bill authors and other advocacy groups to influence the process and maintain language that preserves the original intent of the bill as much as possible.

Not all changes in committee are counter to a bill’s intent. Some may clarify confusing language, making it easier to implement. At times, a bill’s language could even become stronger. However, even if the final bill signed into law doesn’t have all the provisions CalBike would have liked at the outset, it can still make a significant difference.

For example, the Complete Streets Law signed by the governor gives Caltrans more leeway than we would have liked to avoid including biking and walking infrastructure in repair projects. But that doesn’t change the impact of the bill, which showed strong and broad support for streets that work for all modes of transportation. Caltrans is taking it seriously, and CalBike continues to engage with the agency’s implementation efforts.

Changes at the local level

A new law is only as effective as its implementation. A 2023 law allowing several cities to pilot automated speed enforcement has been slow to get started; San Francisco is just now installing its first speed cameras, which will become operational next month. It could be several years before it becomes clear what role automated speed enforcement can play in making our streets safer.

This is not uncommon. Local governments often need time to make implementation plans and develop new local regulations, if needed. Another example of this is the 2014 law CalBike sponsored that added separated, on-street bikeways to California’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD is a go-to reference for planning and public works departments, and many local governments were reluctant to install this protective bike infrastructure unless it was in the MUTCD.

For CalBike, passing the law wasn’t the end of our work. Although the law went into effect in 2015, we created a brochure to introduce protected bike lanes to local governments in 2016. In 2018, we conducted a webinar about why cities should include separated lanes when building on-street bikeways. We also advised on the development of the guidance produced by Caltrans, the Design Information Bulletin 89, which informs Caltrans and local agency staff on how to properly design this facility.

In the 10 years since the original law was passed, protected bikeways have become the gold standard for on-street bike infrastructure. It took time for local governments to understand the concept and incorporate it into their plans (like this recent draft City of San Diego Street Design Manual, which features protected bikeway design on page 94), but that statewide law has had a big impact.

Changing the way we think about our streets

Another reason new state laws can take time to filter down to the local level is that many new laws include stepped or delayed implementation schedules. For example, the Daylighting Saves Lives Law, which CalBike helped pass in 2023, had a two-step implementation. The law went into effect in 2024, but people couldn’t be ticketed for parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk until 2025.

At the beginning of this year, municipalities can ticket people parked too close to a crosswalk, whether the curb is painted red or not. However, local enforcement and ticketing are likely to vary among communities, and some drivers may be unaware of the new law. However, now that the law is in full effect, local governments are starting to paint red curbs and issue parking tickets. It may take time for leaving clear space for visibility around crosswalks to become common practice across California, but this law will save more lives each year as implementation grows.

CalBike Insider: Updating the MUTCD to Comply with New Law

February 4, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

If the headline didn’t lose you at “MUTCD,” welcome! CalBike often works deep in the weeds, sitting on advisory committees and wrangling with state agencies over policy changes that may seem minor or arcane but have significant impact on our safe biking and walking.

One example of this is an update to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. California’s MUTCD is akin to the Bible for state and local planners and public works departments. It lays out allowable road treatments and can frustrate bicycle advocates when it’s used as a reason not to implement the latest guidance on safe biking and walking infrastructure.

However slowly, the MUTCD does get updated with better practices, such as when CalBike passed a law legalizing protected bikeways. Before the 2014 law, few municipalities were willing to install physically separated bike lanes because they weren’t in the MUTCD and cities feared legal liability.

In 2024, CalBike supported AB 1216, which prohibits the installation of, as well as state funding for, Class III bikeways on high-speed streets. A Class III bikeway is a route featuring a shared lane for bike riders and car drivers, sometimes indicated with sharrow markings. The passage of that law triggered an update to the MUTCD.

As a member of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (known by the lovely acronym CWBTAC), CalBike is helping shape the language for new street design guidance that directs communities not to put shared lane markings on streets with speed limits greater than 30 mph. It’s a small thing and pretty technical. But we hope that removing the option to slap some sharrows in the roadway and call it a bikeway will force local governments and Caltrans to design better, safer routes for people who get around by bike.

CalBike Insider: Statewide Bike/Walk Advisory Committee Weighs in on Complete Streets

January 9, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike does a lot of high-profile advocacy, winning big improvements for active transportation such as the Complete Streets Law and the Daylighting Law. But we also spend a lot of time deep in the weeds, sitting on state advisory boards and committees that shape agency policies and the ways that new laws are implemented. Sometimes we’re helping develop the process for a new law we helped pass; in other cases, our administrative work influences policies for biking and walking separate from the legislative process.

Our agency work is never glamorous and can be frustrating at times because of the slow pace of change. But it’s as essential to moving California’s transportation future toward biking, walking, and transit as our legislative work. Here’s a look behind the curtain at a recent meeting of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (CWBTAC).

What is a technical advisory committee?

The CWBTAC is an advisory body to Caltrans, and includes representatives from statewide advocacy groups like CalBike, representatives from city and county governments and transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, consultants, and other state agencies. Membership is open periodically by application and includes geographic, topic area, and sector goals. Quarterly meetings are closed to the public.

CalBike has been a member of the CWBTAC since it was formed in 2018 and was on the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, which the CWBTAC replaced, before that. We communicate regularly with Caltrans administrators during committee meetings such as this and in one-on-one meetings. Representing the concerns and needs of the bicycling community to Caltrans officials has been one of CalBike’s core functions since our founding 30 years ago.

Caltrans workshops implementation of new Complete Streets law

The most recent CWBTAC meeting convened shortly before Thanksgiving, and the main topic on the agenda was Caltrans’ implementation of the recently passed Complete Streets Law, SB 960.

Caltrans presented an overview of the process to ensure the infrastructure needs of people who get around by biking, walking, or taking transit are considered as the agency plans new maintenance projects and outlined the types of public engagement that occur at each stage of the project development process. The meeting then went into breakout groups, during which time participants shared ideas on how Caltrans should implement the Complete Streets law (SB 960). CalBike shared ideas on outreach to bring voices from disadvantaged communities into the discussion and how to create a process that doesn’t allow the desires of car drivers to overrule the interests of vulnerable road users.

Advisory bodies like the CWBTAC provide an opportunity for direct engagement and conversation with Caltrans and other agency staff. These meetings are an opportunity for CalBike to share the bicyclist’s perspective with not only Caltrans but also the local, regional, and statewide agencies and stakeholders that participate.

We will continue to work on Complete Streets implementation, both in large discussion settings and smaller meetings with Caltrans staffers, in the year ahead. The legislative session is barely getting started, but CalBike is already hard at work to make state roadways safer for everyone.

Budget Deal Restores ATP Funding

July 5, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) provides dedicated funding for biking and walking improvements across the state. CalBike championed the creation of the ATP and has continued to advocate for additional funding. We applaud the legislature and the governor for restoring planned funding to the ATP in the 2023-24 state budget. With the budget deal, the ATP will continue to operate with its historic billion dollar one-time expansion and provide critical infrastructure, as we saw in the final list of Cycle 6 projects.

ATP budget in flux

In 2022, with a historic budget surplus, we asked for $2 billion for bikes in the state budget. We didn’t get the full $2 billion, but we got $1.1 billion allocated to the ATP, more than tripling previous annual funding. But, as this year’s budget deficit began to come into focus, Governor Gavin Newsom’s initial budget clawed back $500 million from the ATP. The governor promised to find $300 million of that from other sources, but that still left the program $200 million short.

The final budget deal restored full funding. The California Transportation Commission (CTC), which oversees the ATP and scores projects submitted for funding on a scale of 1 to 100. It approved an additional 134 projects in June, on top of projects previously approved. As Streetsblog reported, the additional funding allowed the CTC to fund projects that scored 92 and above in Cycle 5; an extra $1 billion allowed the commission to extend funding to those with scores of 89 and above in Cycle 6.

Funding for the ATP has increased but not enough to meet demand as California communities scramble to add safe biking and walking infrastructure to streets designed to move cars at deadly speeds. Even with extra one-time funds, many worthy projects don’t make the cut. That means bike lanes and pedestrian improvements delayed or scrapped. This is why CalBike is advocating for $10 billion for bikes, or half of California’s transportation dollars to reverse the historic deficit in building active transportation infrastructure.

How does the ATP work?

If you’re wondering what Cycle 5 and Cycle 6 mean, the explanation requires a deep dive into planning timelines. Let’s start with a history of the ATP.

Created by the state legislature in 2013 to consolidate the efforts of several disparate funding sources, the ATP serves as a central hub for bike and pedestrian projects. The State Senate bill that created the ATP specifically calls for the program to “increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking” and “increase safety and mobility for nonmotorized users.”Since its inception, the ATP has funded over 800 active transportation projects across the state, benefiting both urban and rural areas. Half of the funded projects have been Safe Routes to Schools.

SB 1 (Beall, 2017), also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, significantly augmented ATP’s funding, directing an extra $100 million a year to the ATP and doubling its funding.

Although the funding comes in annually, the CTC accepts applications for another cycle of ATP grants every two years. Cycle 5 was in 2021 and Cycle 6 was this year. Just to make the math more confusing, the grants are distributed over five years, since it can take time to complete the projects.

In 2021, the ATP approved grants for 49 projects in Cycle 5, barely 10% of the applications received. Funded projects included:

$30 million for Connecting Canoga Park – beautifully detailed with maps and renderings here.
$10 million for Safe Routes to School in Koreatown, Los Angeles – with extensive detail on crosswalk and safety features here.
$1440 for the Pollock Pines Pony Express Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements – outlined here.

$10 billion for bikes

The one-time boost in ATP funding allowed CTC to greenlight three times as many projects in Cycle 6 as in Cycle 5 (15 Bay Area projects, plus rural grants, and the 134 projects approved in June, for a total of more than 150). That still left many excellent biking and walking infrastructure projects without state funding.

The ATP isn’t the only funding source for active transportation infrastructure. Local and regional monies pay for projects as well. And there are billions more in the state transportation budget that should shift. With the threat of climate crisis looming ever larger, we need to create space for low- and no-carbon transportation fast, and that requires much more support at the state level.

CalBike is asking our elected officials to spend less on building climate-killing freeways and more on Complete Streets and people-centered transportation infrastructure. Look for our new Complete Streets Campaign, coming later this year. And, of course, we’ll continue to push for $10 billion for bikes.

CalBike Insider: First Look at 2023 Active Transportation Bills

February 2, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

It’s still early days, and CalBike is busy working with legislators and allies to firm up our legislative agenda for 2023, but we’ve already got a few bills on our radar. Here’s an early peek at the 2023 legislation that could make California streets more walkable, bikeable, and equitable.

Pave the Bike Lane

Once again, Assemblymember Laura Friedman is leading the way with critical legislation to turn plans into action. AB 6 fixes a misalignment between regional planning and funding to execute those plans. It would require regional transportation agencies to prioritize projects that reduce GHGs and vehicle miles traveled and promote active transportation. It’s a much-needed change that will help move complete streets projects from planning to implementation.

Divest from the Freeway

AB 7, also by Assemblymember Friedman, ends funding for freeway projects that expand capacity for single-occupancy vehicles. It’s a policy shift we need to mitigate climate change and the toxic pollutants and displacement that endanger communities near freeways.

Safety Stop Redux

After the Bicycle Safety Stop failed to become law twice, Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath introduced AB 73, which proposes pilot programs to test the effects of allowing people on bikes to treat stop signs as yields. While the many states that have already adopted similar laws could be considered (successful) tests, we support anything that moves California out of the dark ages on the safety stop.

Vehicle Weight Fee

Assemblymember Chris Ward has introduced AB 251, a measure to study the relationship between vehicle weight and rates of injury to pedestrians, bike riders, and other vulnerable road users. The study would look at the possibility of assessing a weight fee on passenger vehicles, making it more expensive to drive a bulkier car. We hope it disincentivizes people from buying more lethal vehicles.

Limit Pretextual Policing

As recent tragic events in Memphis illustrated yet again, giving police the power to stop, detain, and aggressively harass people for minor traffic offenses too often leads to violence, and even death, especially if the person is Black or Latino. SB 50, introduced by Senator Steven Bradford, would limit the police’s ability to make pretextual stops and thus limit racial profiling that continues to be rampant. CalBike strongly supports this measure because this bill will curtail the all-too-common pretextual bike stops that make riders of color even more unsafe.

The legislative slate hasn’t been finalized yet, and many more crucial pieces of legislation are in the works. We’ll have more to report soon when CalBike releases its 2023 agenda.

Tag Archive for: calbike insider