calbike insider Archives

CalBike Insider: $2 billion for bikes in 2022

December 1, 2021/in CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

California has a current budget surplus of $31 billion. CalBike is advocating for the governor and legislature to put $2 billion of that surplus toward infrastructure projects that will make our communities safer and more inviting for biking and walking. We’re joined by our allies at Safe Routes Partnership, Transform, California Walks, Move LA, Planning and Conservation League, and Active SGV. That $2B would represent a one-time tenfold increase in funding for active transportation projects, but it will only touch the beginning of California’s need for infrastructure improvements.

The Active Transportation Program was created in 2013 by combining several state and federal funding sources into one account to support bike and pedestrian safety. Total funding was $134 million in 2013 ($160 million in today’s dollars), and the ATP had $238 million in 2020 (a 49% increase). Still, that amount does not come close to meeting the exploding demand for safer streets. The most recent round of ATP funding, for example, drew 453 applications requesting a total of $2.3 billion.

At a funding level of about $220 million each year, the Active Transportation Program is the largest single dedicated source of funding for bike and pedestrian safety in the country. Yet, for a state the size of California, with a transportation budget of $32 billion, it’s nowhere near enough to meet the need.

That’s why the $2 billion boost to active transportation is critical. Only 40 submitted proposals were funded in Cycle 5, representing less than 10% of potential projects. In the last cycle, projects had to score at least 92 points out of a possible 100 in the evaluation process to receive ATP money. Our recommendation for a $500 million augmentation to Cycle 5 ATP projects will allow the state to fund approximately 80 shovel-ready projects immediately. That would make almost all the proposals with applications scoring 86 points or above. CalBike has created a spreadsheet showing all 453 applications, sorted by their score, so you can see where a project from your community fits and if it might get funding.

Of course, this one-time boost is just the beginning. With our allies, we are demanding a doubling of the Active Transportation Program to $500 million annually and a new program to build connected bikeway networks to create 15-minute neighborhoods where everyone’s typical daily needs are just a safe and comfortable 15-minute bike ride away. We’ll need your support to get it done. Please sign the petition.

Half Billion Dollars Stripped from Active Transportation Funding in State Budget Impasse

September 27, 2021/in CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

Earlier this year, CalBike Insider reported that California’s Active Transportation Program was slated to get an extra $500 million in funding from the state’s budget surplus. That’s enough to pay for approximately 80 high-scoring projects that got turned down in the last round of limited ATP funding. You can see the list of all projects here.

The funding for the ATP was part of a $9.6 billion package approved by the legislature in June. It was contingent upon an agreement with the governor about how to spend almost half of it on high-speed rail. The parties never reached a deal, so the funding, including the $500 million boost to the ATP, reverted to the General Fund on October 10.

In case you haven’t been following this tangled tale, here’s a quick recap. Despite the impact of COVID, California ended up with higher than expected revenue and a budget surplus of almost $76 billion. The budget that passed in July directed $9.6 billion of that surplus toward transportation projects. HSR would have gotten $4.2 billion. The ATP’s $500 million would have more than doubled its annual budget of $220 million. Scroll down for a list of all the projects that lost funding when this deal fell through.

The disagreement that killed these projects was about whether to prioritize HSR spending in the Central Valley or urban coastal regions. The governor wanted to prioritize the Central Valley portion, which is easier to build and necessary for the entire system to work as planned. The legislators wanted investment in the urban areas to speed up transit and give millions of their constituents in Los Angeles and the Bay Area a convenient alternative to sitting in traffic in their cars.

In his veto statement for AB 604, Governor Newsom included this language: “I look forward to re-engaging with the Legislature to finalize and pass a comprehensive transportation package early next year that invests in a wide variety of critically-necessary projects including high-speed rail….”

CalBike is concerned that the governor’s message did not explicitly include active transportation among the projects to be funded when they reach an agreement on HSR. Negotiations will continue during the legislative break, with hopes that the parties can return with a package in January or February.

CalBike will work to make sure that the ATP gets its proposed $500 million boost (at least!) in California’s 21/22 fiscal year. A predicted surplus for next year, which is projected to be at least $5 billion, could provide more incentive to invest some of the prior surplus in worthy transportation projects.

Here’s the complete list of defunded projects from the transportation package:

Los Angeles Olympics – $1 billion General Fund to deliver critical projects in time for the 2028 Olympic Games. These funds would be allocated through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). Eligible projects must be in the Southern California region and related to the transportation needs for hosting the 2028 Olympic Games.
Priority Transit and Rail Projects – $1 billion General Fund for transit and rail projects statewide that improve rail and transit connectivity between state and regional/ local services. These funds would also be competitively allocated through TIRCP.
Active Transportation—$500 million General Fund to advance projects that increase the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users. The intent of this allocation is to fund the list of projects already submitted and scored through the CTC’s Active Transportation Program. While the CTC requested $2 billion for active transportation projects, this significant investment was considered sufficient at this time.
High Priority Grade Separations and Grade Crossing Improvements – $500 million General Fund to support critical safety improvements throughout the state. These funds would be allocated through a competitive grant program for both freight and intercity rail-related projects.
High-Speed Rail – $4.2 billion Proposition 1A funds to complete high-speed rail construction in the Central Valley, advance work to launch service between Merced and Bakersfield, advance planning and project design for the entire project, and leverage potential federal funds.
State Highway Rehabilitation and Local Roads and Bridges – $2 billion ($1.1 billion special funds through 2028, and $968 million federal funds) to support the advancement of priority State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) projects, and local road and bridge investments. The source of the $1.1 billion is interest income from the State Highway Account and other accounts.
Zero-Emission Rail and Transit Equipment Purchases and Infrastructure – $407 million ($100 million General Fund, $280 million Public Transportation Account (PTA), and $27 million federal funds) to demonstrate and purchase or lease state-of-the-art clean bus and rail equipment and infrastructure that eliminate fossil fuel emissions and increase intercity rail and intercity bus frequencies. This funding proposal was rejected by the legislature but remains part of the ongoing negotiations.

High-Speed Rail Funding Dispute Holds Up Transportation Spending

July 26, 2021/in CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

A disagreement over the allocation of high-speed rail (HSR) funding is holding billions of transportation dollars hostage in Sacramento, including the Active Transportation Program, California’s only dedicated source of funding for critical biking and walking infrastructure. But don’t worry — a solution to the impasse has begun to take shape.

Governor Newsom and the legislature are engaged in a particularly Californian fight. The governor wants to put the available HSR funding into building the core section already under construction in the Central Valley. (In 2020, CalBike’s Central Valley Project drafted plans to help improve biking and walking access to planned HSR stations in Merced, Bakersfield, and Fresno.) Legislators want the funding to go toward electrification of and improvements to existing rail services at the terminuses in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

The resolution may come from the extra revenue in California’s coffers, thanks to higher than expected interest income. Legislators may be enticed to make a deal with the governor if the package includes funds to support popular projects in their districts. This could, in fact, work in favor of active transportation. Bike and pedestrian projects are very popular with constituents and the legislators know that, so the deal could include a significant additional investment in those projects.

The ATP provides $220 million in annual funding for active transportation projects across the state. The current budget already includes an additional $500 million in ATP funding. CalBike would love to see another funding boost on a similar scale, but nothing is certain at this point. Additional funds would be a welcome boost for the program, especially since at least $1 billion in good projects didn’t make the cut in the last ATP round because there was not enough money.

In addition to the extra ATP money, CalBike is pushing to increase the amount of funding allocated to build the connected bike networks and bike highways envisioned in AB 1147. This funding is separate from and in addition to the ATP monies.

E-bike incentive program budget request

June 17, 2021/in CalBike Insider, CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

CalBike, joined by dozens of allied organizations across the state, submitted a letter of support for Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath’s request for a budget allocation to implement the proposed e-bike incentive program. The letter and its accompanying fact sheet express the consensus of a diversity of organizations that a $10 million investment in helping Californians get e-bikes is a great way to advance very many goals: climate change reduction, social equity, health and happiness, local economic sustainability, and traffic safety.

Dozens of organizations signed on, including statewide, regional, and local advocates for environmental sustainability, equity, and transportation justice; as well as influential public officials and agencies.

Snyder updates e-bike stakeholders on budget request

June 15, 2021/in Sustaining /by Dave Snyder

As you may know, our proposal for a $10 million e-bike incentive program has two tracks: AB 117, the bill that creates the program; and the budget request that funds it. Since our last Zoom policy briefing, we’ve focused entirely on the budget request. Our lobbyist Steve Wallauch and I have met directly with leadership in the Senate and Assembly budget committees, and coordinated similar meetings with key allies. The feedback we’re getting is uniformly positive and we are optimistic!

Here’s why. The budget to be approved by the Legislature today has more funds for the Air Resources Board, including for clean vehicle incentives, than the Governor proposed. However, the details of how that funding will be spent are undecided. They will be hashed out in a series of “budget trailer bills” between now and September. Furthermore,we expect that available funding will increase over the summer when the state receives revenues from the cap-and-trade auction.

This means we have a couple of months to get our program written into one of these trailer bills. Committee leadership write trailer bills behind closed doors, with no opportunity for public pressure. However, thanks to our alliances and our Sacramento team, we have the connections we need to get this program written into the budget.

Even better, a budget trailer bill gives us the opportunity to restore the language that was removed from AB 117 in order to advance it out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. We worked hard to craft that language to balance competing objectives and satisfy diverse stakeholders—environmental justice groups, community organizations, individual consumers, bicycle retailers, and bicycle manufacturers. I will keep you informed as we work to get that language inserted into a budget trailer bill.

After we win the budget, either now or by September, the next steps will be to work with the implementing agency to develop the guidelines that will determine the details of the program.

Thanks again for your ongoing support and interest.

– Dave

P.S. We have done a good job of identifying influencers, but it never hurts to ask: if you have a close connection to one of these six people, let me know: Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, and budget leaders Nancy Skinner and Bob Wieckowski; and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, and budget leaders Phil Ting and Richard Bloom.

P.P.S. You’re receiving this message from me because you’ve signed one of our petitions or expressed support for the bill. This is not a mass mailing. If you want more regular updates, join our list using the form on our homepage at calbike.org.

CalBike Insider: The 12-bill limit, a status report, and CalBike in the news

June 4, 2021/in CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

Some of the most significant work to further better biking, active transportation, and healthy communities in California happens out of the spotlight. CalBike Insider shines the light on some of these critical developments in Sacramento and beyond.

The 12-bill limit puts a damper on the 2021 legislative session

COVID-19 put a severe crimp in the 2020 California legislative session, reordering priorities and forcing many good bills to wait another year. And the pandemic is still affecting legislation in 2021. It’s the justification for a new rule: each assemblymember and senator can only move 12 of the bills they authored out of their house of origin. The pandemic has made debate harder, so the legislature simply won’t consider as many bills. This is further evidence that our system for keeping the essential work of government moving in a crisis is suboptimal.

Status report: where are the bills to watch?

Today marks the deadline for bills introduced by one House to be approved by a majority of its members to advance to the second House. All of CalBike’s bills happened to be Assembly bills this year. Our three sponsored bills passed the Assembly; we went 3-1 on the bills we actively supported and 0-1 (so far) on a bill we opposed. CalBike is working hard to help create the world you want to see while working within a system that is not nearly as small-d democratic as we might like it to be.

The imposition of deadlines can force votes before legislators have a chance to fully understand the implications of the bills. We’re sure that’s why the bill we opposed passed so readily. The assemblymembers did not know its impact. Thankfully, the schedule is more generous while the bills are in the second house, giving us time to educate the Senators. Committee meetings will start in a week and continue until July 16, and then a one-month recess will provide some breathing room before the legislators return to vote on the bills in late August.

The distribution of power in the California legislature

Another undemocratic factor is the power of key legislators. It’s bad enough that merely 40 people in the Senate represent nearly 40 million Californians; it’s worse that a few of those elected officials (usually the ones who can raise lots of money) have extreme power compared to their colleagues. The Appropriations Committee is a good example. Its Chair has nearly independent control over whether a bill gets out of the committee and onto the floor where the members have a chance to vote on it. Two of the bills we love suffered harm in Assembly “Approps.” The committed killed bill to allow speed safety systems outright and weakened our e-bike affordability program through amendments, both without public debate. Even if the leaders of these committees are fantastic representatives who usually fight for everything we love, the process is not very democratic, and we wish that it were.

For details on these bills, and others, see our halftime legislative agenda update.

CalBike in the news

CalBike’s E-Bike Affordability Program has been getting the attention of the press. An editorial in support of the E-Bike Affordability Program was picked up across California and beyond:

Our bill to decriminalize jaywalking also generated headlines as it passed the Assembly. And Streetsblog ran a piece on our petition in support of ending parking minimums for new buildings near transit (AB 1401, Friedman). You can add your name to the petition here.

E-Bike Affordability Program on Chinese news:

Read past editions of the CalBike Insider.

CalBike Insider: Micromobility Fights for Its Life, Ending Parking Mandates, and MUTCD Update

June 1, 2021/in CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

Some of the most significant work to further better biking, active transportation, and healthy communities in California happens out of the spotlight. CalBike Insider shines the light on some of these critical developments in Sacramento and beyond.

Fending Off an Attack on Shared Bikes and Scooters

Shared bikes and scooters are under attack, again. Last year, CalBike defeated a bill that would have imposed an unprecedented insurance requirement on providers of shared mobility services. The cost of the insurance mandate was so steep it would have put them out of business. By marshaling a coalition of environmental organizations to oppose the bill, we got that provision removed at the last minute.

Assembly Bill 371 has revived this same bad idea. The bill requires providers to carry $1 million in insurance to cover the liability of a user who injures another party. It includes another provision that is a good idea: requiring providers to have identification Braille markings on scooters and shared bikes so that vision-impaired people can report dangerously parked devices. But there will be no shared bikes and scooters if the bill passes with the insurance provision intact.

The insurance requirement will apply to private providers like Lyft as well as public shared mobility operators like LA Metro and nonprofit services like many bicycle libraries around the state. It would put them all out of the shared micromobility business and kill this promising low-impact, low-cost transportation mode. This comes just when we need it the most and when bikeshare systems are reporting record ridership.

The Assembly Transportation Committee didn’t hear the bill, so AB 371 passed the Assembly without much education of the legislators about the bill’s impact. CalBike, along with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, has met with Senator Lena A. Gonzalez, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, to urge her to call the bill to her committee hears this bill. That will be our best chance to remove the micromobility-killing insurance requirements.

Ending Car Parking Mandates in New Buildings

AB 1401 (Friedman) would end minimum car parking requirements for new buildings within a half-mile of transit. This legislation is an excellent example of the intersection of housing, biking, and walking issues. CalBike supports this excellent bill.

People who live near transit hubs can often commute without cars. In walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, like the 15-minute cities envisioned by AB 1147, residents can do all or most of their errands car-free as well. Yet many cities require new buildings to include at least a minimum number of parking spaces, often one per unit or more. Worse, some buildings link each housing unit to a parking space, so people without cars are forced to pay extra for an amenity they don’t need.

Parking minimums drive up the cost of construction, adding an average of $24,000 – $34,000 to the cost to build a unit, according to UCLA Urban Planning Professor Donald Shoup. Plus, they waste valuable space that could be used to add more units and create the kind of density that creates vibrant neighborhoods and reduces carbon footprints.

By making residents face the actual costs of parking, reducing parking minimums incentivizes people to use other transit modes. That’s good for the climate, and fewer cars will make the roads safer for people biking and walking.

It’s hard to imagine anyone opposing legislation that will make housing cheaper and more plentiful in California, but forces are working against the Parking Minimum Reduction Bill. Livable California, a NIMBY group, is working against the bill because, well — we need more cars or something.

CalBike will be on the side of those working to pass this vital legislation, which will come up for a vote in the Assembly very soon.

Reform the MUTCD

Now we step deep into the weeds for a topic that is as important as it is obscure to all but the most loyal transportation nerds: the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD, produced by the Federal Highway Administration, is the governing document for traffic engineers around the country. If a road striping scheme or intersection treatment is not in the MUTCD, it’s hard to convince public works departments to put it on the street.

Historically, this design manual has emphasized safety and convenience for motorists traveling at high speeds. It has been slow to include elements to make the streets safer for people who bike and walk. A draft of the 11th edition of the MUTCD is currently accepting public comment. Despite a climate crisis and a historic surge in biking and walking over the past year and despite NACTO providing a roadmap for how to do bike- and pedestrian-friendly street design, the MUTCD update is still far too car-centric.

CalBike has signed onto a letter along with several other active transportation organizations. The text of our sign-on letter is below. If you’d like to advocate for a more bike-friendly road manual, People for Bikes has an action page that lets you easily send a comment letter.

Here’s the letter that CalBike and our allies sent.

CalBike Insider: Street Safety, Budget Surplus, and the Death of a Good Idea

May 21, 2021/in CalBike Insider, CalBike Insider, The Latest /by Dave Snyder

A great deal of the work your CalBike staff does in Sacramento is behind the scenes. We attend technical advisory committee meetings, advise senior (and junior) staff on best practices, and nudge state agencies to advance in our direction: toward better communities where more people can experience the healthful joy of bicycling, with equity, prosperity, and inclusion as top priorities. This week we’ve been reflecting on advances at Caltrans, advocating for active transportation allocations from the budget surplus, and mourning the speed camera bill, which died in committee.

Some of our work is necessarily private, but here’s what we can tell you.

Caltrans is Making Progress

Changing a huge bureaucracy is often difficult. It’s been a slow process to transform Caltrans from an agency that safeguards the interests of cars to one that responds to our current challenges, and there is much more work still to be done.

However, under the leadership of Toks Omishakin, Caltrans has impressed us with structural changes. One great example is the creation of a high-level Division of Safety Programs and the appointment of longtime bicycle advocate Rachel Carpenter as its Chief Safety Officer. Carpenter previously worked on Livable Streets at SFMTA and she’s a regular bike commuter. The division will bring additional focus to the goal of zero traffic deaths. This should have influence over other offices within Caltrans which impact safety, such as Traffic Operations and the Division of Design.

Budget surplus provides an opportunity to fund active transportation projects

California’s May Budget Revision showed a $76 billion surplus, with $38 billion in discretionary spending. The competition for that money is fierce. It’s the source of the $600 checks that most Californians will receive, and a welcome boost to early childhood education and afterschool programs. It’s also a great source for infrastructure funding, especially since it’s a one-time boost. The competitive statewide portion of the Active Transportation Program is funded annually at about $220 million. In 2020, California communities submitted applications for $2.3 billion of projects. It desperately needs an infusion of cash.

Yet active transportation advocates had mixed reactions to a proposal from a cohort of California Transportation Commissioners with ties to the road-building industry. The commissioners asked for an incredible $2 billion infusion into the ATP. However, their intention was to derail an earlier proposal suggested by the California State Transportation Agency in its draft “Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure” that called for an ongoing increase in the ATP by taking a little bit from other programs that mostly fund highways.

Advocates promote an alternate proposal for the budget surplus

CalBike and our allies made an alternative proposal to the Budget Committees, seeking $1 billion for the ATP and an additional $1 billion for other active transportation projects, such as the 15-minute neighborhoods and bicycle highways envisioned by AB 1147.

The governor’s May revision proposed a $500 million augmentation to the ATP and $500 million for regions to implement the goals of AB 1147, although the governor’s proposal is not as visionary as that bill imagines.

This week, CalBike is advocating to win our original request of $1 billion for the ATP and $1 billion for other active transportation projects. The coalition of road builders has joined us in asking for $1 billion for the ATP, but we parted ways on the additional funding for the programs that expand highway capacity that the road builders wanted.

Whatever happens, it looks like the ATP will get a huge infusion of funds. By law, half of the funds enter the statewide competition and half are distributed to local agencies. The state’s portion of the funding will help to implement scores of projects that were unfunded in last year’s round. Also, CalBike will continue to advocate for a longer-term solution to the underfunding of the ATP. The governor’s proposed expenditures on transportation in the next fiscal year are $32.6 billion. Unfortunately, much of this is for highways and other subsidies for driving that make bicycling and walking harder. The ATP does not stand a chance to achieve its goals unless the balance of funding shifts.

CalBike endorses speed camera bill, but the Appropriations Committee does not

AB 550 proposed a pilot project to test the efficacy of speed cameras in several California cities. The bill would have required local agencies to develop guidelines for the program with strict limitations that ensured the system would not increase inequities in California. Fines would have to be low, and only charged at speeds 10 mph or more over the speed limit. Fines could not have additional fees tacked on. The car owner would get the fine, like a parking ticket. Police would not be allowed to be involved. The bill also put privacy controls in place.

The bill’s author, Assembly Member David Chiu, did such a good job addressing these equity concerns that we were excited to support it. Camera speed enforcement reduces crashes and saves lives, and it might be the only acceptable solution to scofflaw speeders on certain streets.

However, the Appropriations Committee killed the bill at its May 20 hearing. The committee didn’t offer any clues for their reason for killing this bill, but the demise of AB 550 is a loss for safe streets. CalBike supports the concept of speed safety systems. If another bill is introduced that addresses equity concerns as comprehensively as AB 550, we’ll support it.

Posts