Complete Streets Archives

Tag Archive for: Complete Streets

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.

New Data Sheds Light on Caltrans Projects

April 1, 2025/by Laura McCamy

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

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

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

Caltrans bikeways prioritized paint over protection

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

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

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

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

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

Bikeway trends over time and space

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

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

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

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

Uneven sidewalks

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

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

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

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

Highways keep on truckin’

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

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

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

More data = good

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

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

CalBike Opposes Bill Giving Fire Departments More Control of Bikeways

March 19, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

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

Firefighters are not traffic engineers

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

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

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

The right way to approach fire and street safety

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

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

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

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

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

March 19, 2025 AB 612 Opposition Letter Download

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.

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.

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.

Diverse Coalition of Advocacy Groups Urges California to Speed Up Emissions Reductions

January 23, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

A coalition of 61 local, statewide, and national organizations, including CalBike, has sent a letter to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC), asking them to move with greater urgency to meet California’s transportation-related climate goals. Under SB 375, which became law in 2008, state and regional planning agencies must pursue sustainable communities strategies, which coordinate land use and transportation planning, and include infill housing and access to public transit and active transportation. With the start of a new federal administration that’s actively hostile to climate change mitigation measures and green transportation, it’s incumbent on California to pick up the slack and move more aggressively toward our climate goals.

After the letter was written, the new administration stripped California of its ability to mandate a transition to EVs. Without that, the urgency to give Californians alternatives to driving is greater than ever.

California continues to invest in freeways instead of bikeways

California’s transportation budget continues to invest heavily in projects that increase traffic and congestion and drive us deeper into a climate hole that’s decimating our state. The Active Transportation Program (ATP), the only dedicated fund for biking, walking, and transit infrastructure, receives a small fraction of the funding dedicated to highway expansion.

The ATP has been the target of repeated attempts to claw back funds while money to build new freeways remained untouched. The program has to turn away more projects than it funds in each two-year cycle.

The ATP isn’t the only source for active transportation funding, but as CalBike’s Incomplete Streets investigation showed, Caltrans has often shortchanged bikeways and sidewalks, claiming there wasn’t enough funding to build them into maintenance projects on state-controlled streets.

With the passage of the Complete Streets Law in 2024, we hope to see more robust investment in making California’s state routes welcoming and safe for people using all modes of transportation. Planners and engineers assume that because most people drive, most people want to get around by car, but the truth is that there is pent-up demand for active transportation. Research shows that building safe bikeways leads to more bicycle traffic, and cities like Copenhagen and Paris show what’s possible.

California must act now

It’s hard to know how big a disaster must be to convince Americans, even Californians, that climate change is an imminent threat requiring immediate action. Perhaps the horror and devastation of the LA fires will be a tipping point. But our human inclination is to return to life as usual. Humans distrust change and often instinctively oppose it.

So we need our elected officials to lead the way. We need serious, major investments in active transportation and public transit. We need climate-conscious planning from statewide and regional agencies.

The signers of the letter include environmental, health, and housing advocacy groups, as well as biking and walking coalitions, and more. This intersectional group is a strong coalition to stand up for reducing driving, removing freeways, and giving urban and rural residents safe, clean, convenient transportation options.

Read the letter.

Accelerate Transpo Emissions Reduction 20250121 Download

What Is the Best Way to Prioritize the Safety of Vulnerable Road Users?

January 22, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

In recent years, the number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed and seriously injured on roadways in California has steadily increased. The U.S. is now an outlier among developed nations in the rate of road deaths, and California has the highest total number of pedestrian deaths.

Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are people on our roads and sidewalks who don’t have the protection of a vehicle’s cage to keep them safe. This includes people walking, biking, riding scooters and skateboards, using mobility aids, and traveling by horseback.

As long as we prioritize the desires of car and truck drivers at the expense of others in our transportation systems, people walking and biking will continue to be disproportionately injured and killed on our shared roads. Here are some policy changes that could help make our streets safer for everyone.

Varied paths to VRU safety

There are lots of ways to make our streets safer for people outside of motor vehicles. Infrastructure is at the top of the list, but changing our streets scan be costly and time-consuming. While a project moves slowly through the planning process, more people die. CalBike is working on a quick build bill this year that we hope will result in more Complete Streets, faster and at a lower cost.

Slowing speeds is another option, since vehicle speed is one of the main factors impacting the severity of VRU injuries in a crash. We have supported legislation to reduce speeds and better enforce existing speed limits.

Another way to protect VRUs is to recognize and define the vulnerable road user in our state statute, as many other states have already done.

What is a vulnerable road user law?

In 2007, Oregon became the first state to pass a vulnerable road user law, and at least 12 states — Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington — have since adopted similar laws. More states are also adding anti-harassment laws that penalize actions such as throwing objects at bicyclists and pedestrians from a moving vehicle.

VRU laws increase the penalties for drivers in a collision that results in the death or serious injury of someone outside a vehicle. They recognize the special care that people operating dangerous machines on shared streets should exercise toward those not encased in steel and moved by a powerful motor. The League of American Bicyclists has drafted model language for such laws.

The increase in VRU collisions prompted the U.S. Congress to mandate, through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), that all states complete a VRU Safety Assessment as part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). California’s assessment is very helpful in laying the groundwork for policy action to support VRUs.

Vulnerable road user laws and anti-harassment ordinances boost incentives for motorists to practice safe roadway behavior and deter unsafe behaviors around people walking and biking. They also increase opportunities for vulnerable road users to seek legal recourse after a crash. But do they work to prevent negligent driving that leads to collisions?

How effective are VRU ordinances?

In the last decade, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Sunnyvale, Sebastopol, and Santa Rosa have all adopted anti-harassment ordinances, which protect people on bicycles from “intentional threats, assaults, or harassment by motorists.”

The majority of vulnerable road user laws and anti-harassment ordinances provide increased fines and civil liability in cases where a person walking or biking is injured or killed because of negligent or intentional motorist behavior. Under most vulnerable road user laws or anti-harassment ordinances, bicyclists can bring a lawsuit against a vehicle driver in civil court — which has a lesser burden of proof than criminal court — making it easier for bicyclists to get compensated for their injuries and damages.

It’s not clear if VRU laws have the intended effect of reducing crashes and improving the safety of people walking, biking, etc. We couldn’t find studies comparing before and after crash statistics in jurisdictions that have enacted increased penalties, perhaps because the trend is relatively recent. But a recent Washington Post article about a Virginia VRU law showed that it had rarely been used.

CalBike has campaigned to decriminalize things such as jaywalking, where enforcement tends to be disproportionately aimed at people who are low-income, unhoused, or BIPOC. There’s a danger that VRU laws could be applied with the same biases, disproportionately penalizing Black and Latino drivers.

In addition, fear of stiffer penalties could increase the number of hit-and-run crashes. This is already a problem — a AAA research brief states: “The number of hit-and-run fatalities has been increasing at an average rate of 7.2% per year since 2009. A large part of this increase has been in fatal crashes involving non-vehicle occupants, mostly pedestrians.” The chance of survival for a vulnerable road user hit by a car goes down the longer they wait before getting medical attention, so more hit-and-runs leads to more preventable fatalities.

But there’s one more issue to consider with VRU laws.

Driving a car shouldn’t be a license to kill

When you read about collisions, drivers are often praised for exercising basic human decency and not fleeing the scene after they crash into a human being or an object. Police often make excuses for driver negligence, except in the most extreme cases where there is an intent to harm, and often fail to charge drivers with any crime.

This puts motor vehicles in a special category. In fact, the California Penal Code recognizes three types of manslaughter: voluntary, involuntary, and vehicular. In describing vehicular manslaughter, the code states: “This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.”

You can’t be punished for murdering someone with your car unless you are committing an unlawful act. While drivers break traffic laws all the time by running lights, failing to stop at stop signs, and exceeding the speed limit, these crimes may be hard to prove.

One of the research papers we found is titled If You Want to Get Away With Murder, Use Your Car, and it’s true. We hold people operating heavy machines capable of traveling at high speeds to lower standards than anyone doing anything else. So a sense of justice could lean toward equalizing the penalties and removing the special classifications for vehicular manslaughter.

The definition of involuntary manslaughter in the California penal code is causing a death while committing a misdemeanor or “in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death.” A person can be charged with involuntary manslaughter if they are acting “without due caution and circumspection.” In other words, if you aren’t breaking the law in any other way but you accidentally kill someone, you may be charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you’re working on your roof, let a 2 x 4 fall into the street, and it hits your neighbor and kills them, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter. You didn’t mean to do it, but you are responsible.

There’s a third category of manslaughter in the California code: vehicular. If you aren’t otherwise breaking the law in your car and you accidentally kill someone, you cannot be charged with vehicular manslaughter. For example, if someone is driving the speed limit in a truck with a grille so tall they don’t see a child in the crosswalk and run the child over, they are not guilty of vehicular manslaughter and are unlikely to be otherwise held to account.

Drivers are allowed to hit pedestrians they don’t see with impunity. It’s a legal position that normalizes the thousands of deaths on U.S. roads every year, letting drivers off with a small fine for failures of attention that cause life-changing injuries or death.

Would increased liability lead to more responsible driver behavior? It’s unclear. We certainly need to prioritize street designs that reduce speed and provide safer infrastructure for people walking and riding bikes. The question is how we reduce the carnage on our streets until we are able to make those changes.

CalBike ED Statement on 2024 Legislative Session

October 7, 2024/by Kendra Ramsey

This was a good year for bike-friendly legislation in Sacramento. Not every bill CalBike supported passed, and many excellent ideas died in the legislature, but we achieved significant wins that show the value of our long-term strategy and set the table for safer, more equitable streets moving forward.

Complete Streets: A long road to victory

Senator Scott Wiener has stood by the promise of Complete Streets on Caltrans corridors for years, introducing bills in 2017, 2019, and 2024. Each time, CalBike stepped up as a sponsor and strong supporter of the legislation. We know state routes that serve as community main streets are often deadly for people biking and walking; CalBike has worked with Caltrans and campaigned for Complete Streets on these roads steadily for the past several years.

Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the Complete Streets Bill in 2019, saying Caltrans should get a chance to live up to its own Complete Streets policies. When Senator Wiener introduced another Complete Streets Bill (SB 960) this year, we knew we had to show the governor that Caltrans needed more than internal policy directives to change decades of car-centric transportation planning.

So CalBike’s policy director, Jared Sanchez, requested project documents completed since the 2019 veto to fact-check Caltrans’ claims that it was devoting significant funds to biking and walking improvements. Our research demonstrated where Caltrans was falling short; the results of that investigation are in our report, Incomplete Streets: Aligning Practice with Promise in Caltrans Projects.

The loss in 2017 and veto in 2019 were discouraging, but CalBike never stopped pushing for access and safety on state routes because we know that building legislative support behind a good idea can take time. That’s why we will continue to work to decriminalize common, safe bike riding behaviors such as treating stop signs as yields. We will encourage Caltrans to adopt a quick-build pilot, a provision in a bill that died this year but is much needed. We’ll continue to fight freeway expansions that threaten our climate and our neighborhoods.

Whether we achieve these advances quickly or slowly, CalBike will not stop championing better biking. We celebrate 30 years of advocacy in 2024 and look forward to the next 30; we are in it for the long haul.

More reasons to celebrate

In this legislative session, we also supported the Transportation Accountability Act (AB 2086), along with our allies at the Greenlining Institute and Transform, which dovetails with our Complete Streets work. We co-sponsored a new law ensuring bridges remain toll-free for people biking and walking across them. We helped pass laws that will lead to safer bikeways and safer e-bikes.

Our work for next year and the years ahead

In the near term, we will be meeting with Caltrans to talk about the implications of the Complete Streets law and our suggestions for implementation. We’re still formulating our agenda for 2025, but we know we’ll be advocating for more funding for active transportation projects and a swift and just transition of our transportation systems to give every Californian the opportunity to choose biking as a safe and healthy mobility option.

Bike-Friendly Wins and Losses (but Mostly Wins) in 2024

October 7, 2024/by Jared Sanchez

Governor Gavin Newsom has either signed or vetoed all 600 bills that made it to his desk this year. Nine of the bills CalBike supported made it to the governor’s desk — he signed seven and vetoed two. Another eight bills CalBike supported died in the legislature. In addition, two e-bike pilot measures we were watching became law, and one e-bike restriction died in the legislature.

Of course, the huge news from this legislative session is that Complete Streets on Caltrans corridors is now California law with the signing of SB 960, strengthening the mandate for Caltrans to update our state routes to serve all users when it does maintenance projects.

Here’s our legislative recap.

Complete Streets crosses the finish line

It took three tries, with bigger coalitions and campaigns each time, but Senator Scott Wiener’s Complete Streets Bill, SB 960, is now the law in California. This is a huge victory for advocates of safer streets and active transportation access. Caltrans maintains thousands of miles of state routes, many of which serve as community main streets. Because the agency has historically managed these roads with the goal of maximum motor vehicle throughput, they are among the most deadly streets for people walking and biking.

What will change now that the Complete Streets Bill is law?

The Complete Streets Bill was modified (watered down) during the legislative process, a common occurrence. But the final version includes a strong mandate requiring Caltrans to do a better job of using State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds to build much-needed bikeways, sidewalks, bus boarding islands, and more.

In addition, the scrutiny on Caltrans has ramped up since it fired Jeanie Ward-Waller last year. The campaign for the Complete Streets Bill and CalBike’s Incomplete Streets articles and report shone a light on trends and practices that fail to protect the safety of vulnerable road users. CalBike will continue to work with the agency and assess its progress to comply with state law and build Complete Streets wherever feasible.

Specifically, SB 960 will:

Require Caltrans to commit to four-year targets for adding Complete Streets improvements to state roadways.
Create policy for implementing transit-priority facilities and transit stops on state-controlled streets and highways.
Speed the process at Caltrans for granting permits to local governments or transit operators that want to build Complete Streets networks that encroach on or overlap with Caltrans rights of way.

More good news

Here are four more excellent bills that CalBike supported and the governor signed.

Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086 (Schiavo): The transparency and reporting this new law mandates will help advocates like CalBike monitor progress on the Complete Streets law.
Banning Bridge Tolls for People Walking and Biking, AB 2669 (Ting): This makes permanent a measure that would have sunset next year, allowing toll-free crossings for people who walk or bike across toll bridges. It will have the biggest impact in the Bay Area, which has several toll bridges with bicycle and pedestrian lanes.
Bike Lanes in Coastal Areas, SB 689 (Blakespear): This new law limits the ability of the Coastal Commission to block the development of new bikeways on existing roads in coastal areas.
Limits on Class III Bikeways, SB 1216 (Blakespear): Class III bikeways are lanes shared by bike riders and car drivers. While they may be appropriate for neighborhood streets and in some other contexts, they are sometimes used in place of more protective infrastructure because the cost is much lower. This new law will limit the use of state funding to create Class III bikeways on high-speed routes.

E-bike bills roundup

E-bikes were on the minds of legislators, with a number of bills introduced to regulate or restrict e-bikes and e-bike riders.

CalBike supported two of these bills, which the governor signed. The E-Bike Modification Bill, AB 1774 (Dixon), prohibits the sale of devices that can modify e-bikes to provide an electric boost beyond top speed limits that meet the definition of e-bikes. This addresses concerns about modified e-bikes that reportedly allow riders to go much faster than the 28 mph boost allowed under Class 3, the fastest classification of e-bikes.

The E-Bike Battery Safety Standards Bill, SB 1271 (Min), requires all e-bikes sold in California to have safety certifications for their batteries. This will help prevent most battery fires, since they are usually caused by substandard batteries. It also clarifies what can be advertised and sold as an e-bike, placing further guardrails on out-of-class two-wheel devices.

In addition, two bills we were watching became law. Both are local pilots to allow cities to add more age restrictions for riding an e-bike. State law already prohibits anyone under 16 from riding a Class 3 e-bike but places no restrictions on Class 1 and 2.

E-Bike Restrictions in Marin County, AB 1778 (Connolly): This bill would prohibit a person under 16 years of age from operating a Class 2 electric bicycle and require any person operating, or riding upon, a Class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet. This is a pilot for Marin County.
E-Bike Pilot Age Restrictions, AB 2234 (Boerner): This bill would create a pilot program in San Diego County that would prohibit a person under 12 years of age from operating an electric bicycle of any class.

Speed controls: vetoed

Governor Newsom vetoed two bills CalBike supported, and both addressed unsafe motor vehicle speeds. The Safer Vehicles Save Lives Bill, SB 961 (Wiener), was a companion to the Complete Streets Bill that would have required most cars, trucks, and buses sold in California to include passive intelligent speed assist (ISA) by 2030. Passive ISA gives drivers a signal when they exceed the speed limit by 10 miles per hour and can help prevent speed-related collisions, saving lives. The original version of the bill also required freight trucks to install sideguards, an inexpensive add-on that prevents people walking or bicycling from being dragged under the rear wheels in a collision. Sideguards not only save lives but also reduce drag, improving fuel efficiency. We hope both of these excellent safety measures become law in California and nationally.

The governor also vetoed the Unsafe Speed Penalties Bill, SB 1509 (Stern), which would have increased penalties for people caught speeding more than 25 mph over the speed limit on roads with speed limits of 55 mph or less. Speed is a significant factor in fatalities of vulnerable road users, so this is a regrettable veto.

Get the final results of all the bills CalBike was supporting or following on our legislative watch page.

New CalBike Report Details the Unfulfilled Promise of Complete Streets in Caltrans Projects

September 30, 2024/by Brian Smith

For Immediate Release: 9/30/24

Contact: Jared Sanchez, 714-262-0921, jared@calbike.org

SACRAMENTO — Today, CalBike is releasing a new report: Incomplete Streets: Aligning Policy with Practice at Caltrans.

The report details where Caltrans has succeeded in adding elements for people biking, walking, and taking transit when it repairs state roadways that serve as local streets. But the findings also detail, for the first time, evidence of where Caltrans falls short, using data to show pattern and practice at the agency and case studies to illustrate how district staffers downgrade and leave out infrastructure people biking and walking on Caltrans projects.

Last Friday, CalBike celebrated Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of Senator Scott Wiener’s Complete Streets Bill, SB 960. The signing is a huge victory after seven years of advocacy by CalBike and our partners SPUR, AARP California, and others. We applaud the governor for recognizing the need for reform at Caltrans. Newsom also signed the Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086, a bill to increase oversight of Caltrans.

The Complete Streets Bill and the Transportation Accountability Act are the first steps. Holding Caltrans accountable comes next.

Jared Sanchez, policy director at CalBike said, “Caltrans needs more oversight. The Complete Streets Bill will require clearer goals and better reporting for Complete Streets, ensuring that the agency prioritizes the needs of all road users. Our new report explains why Caltrans needed a stronger mandate to get the job done and will continue to need better oversight in the future.”

In California, state routes often double as local streets, weaving through towns and cities. They connect schools, hospitals, senior centers, shops, and homes. These roads are usually the most direct route across regions and are managed by Caltrans to prioritize vehicle speed over the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. These streets can become safer with Complete Street elements that Caltrans has committed to include in repaving and rehabilitation projects. Now that the Complete Streets Bill has become law, we hope Caltrans will join us in building safer streets, but the agency has a long way to go.

Why was the Complete Streets Bill needed?

In 2023, the California Bicycle Coalition (CalBike) surveyed our members about their experiences on Caltrans-controlled local streets. The response was almost unanimous: people want to walk and bike on state routes that double as local streets, but they don’t feel safe doing so. We then spent much of 2024 reviewing Caltrans project documents from the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) obtained through Public Records Act requests. We narrowed our focus to 200 projects on roadways used by people biking and walking funded by the 2024 SHOPP cycle, out of a total of over 600 projects in the 2024 SHOPP.

The Complete Streets Bill will require Caltrans to consider the needs of people riding bikes, walking, and taking transit on our state roadways, many of which serve as local streets. SB 960 will increase accountability by requiring the agency to set targets for active transportation improvements in SHOPP projects and add elements for people biking, walking and taking transit when it repairs roadways. It will also establish a transit priority policy, placing greater emphasis on transit improvements on state roadways.

Findings

Caltrans’ project documents show the agency has made progress but still has a long way to go to make sure state routes that serve as main streets are safe for all users.

The total cost of Complete Streets facilities needs identified in the 200 projects was $1 billion out of total project costs of $6.1 billion, or 17.13% of the project budget. But Caltrans included less than a quarter of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified by its staff, ultimately promising to spend less than $240 million on Complete Streets. Therefore, less than 4% of total spending on the 200 projects where Caltrans considered active transportation elements (which was already a subset of the 600 total SHOPP projects) went to bicycle or pedestrian safety.

Despite Caltrans’ public commitment to Complete Streets, its implementation falls short. While 52% of the projects CalBike reviewed included all the identified pedestrian and cycling safety needs, a review of additional planning documents showed that over 60% of the projects failed to meet the documented needs. The disparity between identified needs and implemented facilities highlights a critical need for more effective oversight to ensure safer streets for all California residents.

CalBike will continue to monitor progress at Caltrans to push for greater transparency in the agency’s actions. We look forward to working with Caltrans toward creating a state transportation system that serves all road users.

IncompleteStreets Download

###