featured Archives - Page 28 of 35

How will the Infrastructure Bill Impact California Bike Riders?

November 16, 2021/by Laura McCamy

Congress has passed, and the president has signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It’s a $1.2 trillion spending package that will invest in aging infrastructure across the US. We share the disappointment of many progressives that this bill still puts too much money toward road-building and not enough toward infrastructure that will help wean us off fossil fuels. Still, there is a lot to like.

Infrastructure Bill basics

Every five years, Congress passes a transportation bill providing five years of funding for transportation projects across the U.S. That bill is wrapped into the $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill. So, out of $645 billion for transportation, $300 billion is a reauthorization of existing funding, while $345 billion is new money on top of expected spending.

Here’s a partial list of what’s in the bill (in billions):

$110 for roads and bridges
$39 for transit and rail
$65 to upgrade broadband infrastructure
$25 for airport upgrades
$17 to modernize ports
$65 for improvements to the electric grid
$55 for water infrastructure
$50 for security and resilience in public infrastructure
$7.5 for electric vehicles

Of course, the question on the minds of active transportation advocates and bike riders is: What’s in it that will make bicycling safer? We have a few preliminary answers to that question, based on reports from and interviews with state and national leaders.

Active transportation funding boost

California has been getting $89 million in active transportation funding from the federal government. That money goes to the state’s Active Transportation Program, which has a total budget of $220 million. The Infrastructure Bill increases active transportation funding by 60%, which gives California an additional $53.4 million to bring the total ATP to more than $270 million.

Of course, this is still woefully inadequate. In the last cycle, the ATP budget covered only a fraction of the projects that applied for funding, leaving many excellent projects unfunded. The governor and the legislature need to settle a dispute about high-speed rail funding and release $500 million in additional ATP monies.

The bill also includes a Complete Streets policy, mandating that planners consider all road users, not just car drivers. However, thanks to advocacy from your CalBike, California already has a Complete Streets policy in place, so this feature won’t have much, if any, impact here.

Rule changes in the bill will dedicate a larger share of funding to regional agencies, which are more likely to support active transportation than state agencies. This funding can also make it easier to meet local match requirements.

Another critical new policy requires states where at least 15% of fatalities are vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and people on bikes, to dedicate at least 15% of their Highway Safety Improvement Plan funds to measures that improve vulnerable road user safety. In California, 29% of fatalities are vulnerable road users and, in its HSIP implementation plan, spent approximately 24% of its funds on safety for people walking and bicycling. CalBike believes that California’s investment in protecting vulnerable road users should match their share in road fatalities. We will push the state to increase its HSIP spending on biking and walking safety to at least 29%.

New standards for automobile safety

The Infrastructure Bill represents a significant break from past automobile safety policies, which focused on protecting the safety of passengers and defending, literally to the death, the drivers’ rights to go ever faster.

Here are some of the noteworthy safety initiatives in the legislation:

New cars will come equipped with sensors that prevent drunk driving.
New headlight standards will require technologies that help reduce fatalities at dusk and after dark.
Crash testing for front bumpers will include an assessment of safety for people outside the car during a collision. While this doesn’t impose any limits on auto manufacturers who want to make SUVs and trucks designed to kill pedestrians, it will put information in the hands of consumers. Hopefully, people will vote with their dollars and choose safer models.

But wait, there’s more potential funding

CalBike recently spoke with California State Transportation Secretary David S. Kim, and he’s excited to compete for some of the additional funding sources created by the Infrastructure Bill. That includes $200 million a year for the Connecting America’s Active Transportation System Act, which improves connectivity in active transportation networks. We a thrilled at Secretary Kim’s enthusiasm and this opportunity to bring more connected bikeway networks to California communities.

The bill also includes $200 million a year for the Reconnecting Communities pilot program, which seeks to compensate for damage caused by freeway building through BIPOC neighborhoods. Projects that this money could fund include bikeways, pedestrian bridges, and freeway removal.

Chinatowns in many California cities were split by freeway construction. CalBike would love to see I-980 in Oakland removed to make room for badly-needed housing and reconnect the city’s historic Chinatown. However, as Smart Growth America pointed out, the $1B investment in freeway reparations is dwarfed by the bill’s $300B for building new freeways, including a Louisana highway that will bulldoze a Black neighborhood in Shreveport.

As bike advocates, we’ve learned to celebrate incremental progress and fight hard for more. So we appreciate the Infrastructure bill, and CalBike will work hard to get more money for better biking and better communities in California.

2021 California Legislative Wrap Up

November 5, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

Positive Results for Active Transportation, Amid Disappointments

On Friday, October 8, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a list of bills he had signed or vetoed. The list included vetoes of three of the most important bills that would have made our streets and communities safer and more livable.

While we were extremely disappointed by the vetoes, there were some bright spots for active transportation in the 2021 legislative session. California assemblymembers and senators introduced a raft of legislation that could transform our communities for the better. Many of these bills would have served to slow our trajectory toward climate catastrophe.

Some outstanding bills got stalled out in committee long before they could reach the governor’s desk—you can read about those in our mid-session and post-session legislative recaps. But several bills did make it into law, and those that didn’t still succeeded in adding critical issues to statewide and national discussions about who has the right to be safe and comfortable using public streets.

Progress happened through several channels

While legislation got most of the attention, wins for people who bike came from other government actions this year, too. For example, several of the candidates CalBike supported in 2020 showed that they are true bike champions by supporting bike-friendly bills and active transportation funding.

And it’s hard to understate the consequences of Laura Friedman becoming chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee. We knew Friedman was an ally when she attended the last California Bicycle Summit in Los Angeles. She earned cheers at the Summit for challenging the comments of a Caltrans speaker and saying that safe roads for our children are more important than the convenient delivery of products from Amazon. Still, she has exceeded our expectations, authoring impactful legislation (though AB 1147 was the victim of one of the Governor’s vetoes – see below) and shifting the focus of the committee’s efforts toward building the green transportation networks we will need to navigate a world wracked by climate change. We are lucky to have champions like Assemblymember Friedman supporting active transportation in California.

We also saw progress through the work of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee, of which CalBike is a member. The committee submitted a promising request to narrow the minimum lane width to 10 feet. The current minimum width of 11 feet often precludes the ability to install a bicycle lane or widen a sidewalk. The committee proved that there is no evidence that wider vehicle lanes are safer, and plenty of reasons to allow narrower lanes, including lower vehicle speeds. We are optimistic that Caltrans will accept this road design change, which could have a major impact on street redesign across California.

And, of course, CalBike won a big victory for biking by getting our $10 million E-Bike Affordability Program fully funded through the budget process. Now, we are working with CARB to shape the structure of the program, which will begin to distribute e-bike grants in July 2022. Sign the form below to get notified when purchase incentives are available.

Governor Newsom’s lack of vision

A few weeks after the governor survived a recall, with the support of CalBike and other active transportation advocacy organizations, he showed us why he might not be the visionary leader that California needs in a time of climate crisis. He relied on selective and biased data in his veto statements for CalBike’s bills, showing that he’s out of touch with the needs of people who bike and walk, particularly communities of color.

The legislature recognized that the Freedom to Walk Act and the Bicycle Safety Stop Bill would have made the streets safer for the most vulnerable users but, unfortunately, the governor was swayed by the “windshield perspective” of law enforcement, a group that has historically been biased against bike riders.

Another disappointment was Newsom’s veto of AB 1147, which CalBike strongly supported. The bill would have initiated coordination among California planning agencies to help reach our climate goals. It calls for the prioritization of 15-minute communities where low-carbon living becomes possible because goods and services are no more than 15 minutes from any residence. The bill does not fund these projects but begins the process of planning them, making this a powerful climate-reduction tool.

“The climate crisis is real, and it’s here now. We need to reduce the impacts of our transportation system quickly, not years in the future. AB 1147 would have given California communities crucial tools to add safe biking and walking infrastructure so that everyone from 8 to 80 years old has the option to choose active transportation to get around their communities. We are disappointed that Governor Newsom lacked the vision to see that this bill is essential to a happier, healthier, and more climate-resilient California.”
Dave Snyder, CalBike Executive Director

In his veto message for AB 1147, the governor cited ongoing negotiations to allocate additional funding to active transportation and rail projects. That’s a weak excuse for his lack of support of a bill that would have allowed communities to embark on the radical infrastructure changes we will need if we have any hope of combatting climate change. CalBike hopes the ideas articulated in Assemblymember Friedman’s visionary bill, which both houses of the legislature endorsed, will not die with this veto.

Now, some good news

Governor Newsom did sign AB 43 to give communities more leeway to lower speed limits to make streets safer for people who walk and bike.

Bills that pass the legislature but don’t get a veto or a signature from the governor automatically become law. Several bills that CalBike supported fell into this category:

AB 773 will make it easier for communities to continue or expand Slow Streets programs like the ones put in place during the pandemic.
SB 69 advances a rails-to-trails project to create a bikeway from Sonoma County to Humboldt County.
SB 339 expands a pilot project in what we hope will be a move toward mileage-based road user fees that will discourage driving and encourage alternate transportation modes.
SB 671 is an essential step toward reducing toxic emissions from diesel trucks in freight corridors, which are often adjacent to disadvantaged communities.

Left in limbo

Several bills on CalBike’s watchlist became two-year bills. This means that the legislation may come back in 2022, with a shorter path to passage or failure. One of the bills we’re watching most closely is AB 371, which includes insurance requirements that could end bike-share in California if it passes as currently written. We will work with the author to try and craft a bill that meets the need for better liability insurance for shared micromobility while ensuring that Californians still have access to this vital transportation option.

You can see the final status of all the bills CalBike followed on our legislative watch page or in the chart below.

Cycling for Sustainable Cities Symposium Provides Inspiration from Around the World

November 1, 2021/by Laura McCamy

On October 12, over 125 people joined CalBike for our first Advance Symposium ahead of the California Bicycle Summit. Authors and researchers John Pucher and Ralph Buehler shared a presentation based on their indispensable book, Cycling for Sustainable Cities. The webinar included data on cycling rates in different cities, including inspiring examples of cities that vastly increased their cycling mode share through concerted and forward-thinking planning.

Just a few of the interesting details from the session:

From 1990 to 2017, San Francisco more than tripled it’s cycling mode share. That still only took it from 1% to 3.3%.
Portland, Oregon, started at 1% bike mode share and, by building a connected bike network over a span of 20 years, saw 7% of trips by bike.
Seville, Spain, achieved a leap from 1% to 6% of trips by bike in just four years, showing what is possible if a city throws its muscle into better bike infrastructure.

Cycling for sustainable cities mode share chart

If this kind of cycling data makes your heart beat faster (it does for us!), watch the video below and then pick up a copy of the book.

The Advance Symposia are free sessions offered on zoom. We will hold two more: Lessons from Latin America on December 7, 2021, and California Advocacy Success Stories on February 22, 2022. Our in-person California Bicycle Summit will take place in Oakland on April 6-9, 2022. You can register for the Symposia and get a special early-bird rate for the Summit (until November 30, 2021) at calbike.org/summit.

Watch Cycling for Sustainable Cities:

Response From CalBike’s Executive Director to the Governor’s Vetoes of Bicycle and Pedestrian Bills

October 20, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

In 2021, CalBike decided to sponsor two related bills that would have legalized walking midblock across an empty street (AB 1238, Ting) or biking carefully through a stop sign at an empty intersection (AB 122, Boerner Horvath). Our goal was to broaden and strengthen the movement for the dignity and safety of people who walk and bike.

Despite the governor’s vetoes (see below), we made significant progress. More than 100 organizations and 3,000 people signed on in support of both bills. Your support made a difference.

The Bicycle Safety Stop Bill received bipartisan supermajority support. The Freedom to Walk Act started a national discussion about how we police walking in this country (covered in the New York Times and on NPR’s “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me”).

Newsom’s veto messages cited solidarity with our cause, if not our proposals. In his veto of the Freedom to Walk Act, he said, “unequal enforcement of jaywalking laws and the use of minor offenses like it as a pretext to stop people of color … is unacceptable.” His veto of the Bicycle Safety Stop Bill cited his “full support of safe and equitable access to the state’s transportation network for bicyclists.”

Unfortunately, the governor didn’t include specific proposals to accomplish these supposed commitments to our goals in either letter. And we are troubled by his reliance on biased SWITRS data to support conclusions about bicycle and pedestrian safety.

However, CalBike is part of a strong movement and public support for giving people the joyful option to bike safely. It’s affordable, healthy, neighborly, and sustainable. We’ve gained momentum, and we’ll use that to move us forward. CalBike is advocating for significant increases in active transportation investment at the scale needed to make our streets safe for people who bike and walk. We’ll give the governor a real chance to achieve his stated goals, and we’ll build a strong coalition with increasing public support that will make it even harder for lawmakers to reject future proposals.

Dave Snyder, Executive Director, CalBike

What Governor Newsom Got Wrong About Biking and Walking

October 20, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

On October 8, 2021, the governor vetoed two bills that CalBike had sponsored: The Bicycle Safety Stop Bill (AB 122, Boerner Horvath) and the Freedom to Walk Act (AB 1238, Ting). In both cases, he cited data collected by police and, therefore, marred by police biases. In 2021, it should be unacceptable to rely on police accounts when making decisions about public safety. On top of that, Newsom presented slices of data cherry-picked to support his vetoes.

Here’s why Governor Newsom’s statistics, and the conclusions he reached, were misleading, disingenuous, and just plain wrong.

The governor’s defective data on biking

bikes should be able to treat stop signs as yields

The governor’s veto of the Bicycle Safety Stop demonstrates how inaccurate reporting of bike crashes harms bike safety efforts. The governor cited statistics from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS), California’s database of crash reports compiled by police departments around the state. It is the only official source of data about the cause of traffic crashes.

In his veto message, Newsom’s claim that 88% of the people killed while biking past a stop sign were at fault displays a fundamental failure to understand safe bicycling or account for the anti-bike bias that is endemic to policing. And, unfortunately, police have only the car driver’s word for what happened after they have killed someone on a bike.

For example, when Amelie le Moullac was killed in San Francisco by a truck turning right into her path, the police report faulted the bicyclist for running into the side of the truck. SFPD didn’t even bother to look for evidence to back up this anti-bike assumption. It was the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition that found camera footage of the crash, proving that Ms. le Moullac was standing legally in the bike lane when the truck turned into her.

According to SWITRS, people on bikes and walking are constantly throwing themselves in front of law-abiding drivers and suffering death and injury as a result.

SWITRS data is unreliable. Police aren’t trained in the choices people on bikes make to ensure their safety, and they then make assumptions about who is at fault in a crash based on preconceived ideas about bicyclists’ bad behavior. Unfortunately, this unverified information influences policy debates throughout California. When the media reports on a controversial bike safety improvement, reporters cite SWITRS that claims half of all bike crashes are the bicyclist’s fault. That false statistic reduces the political will to take the actions needed to truly make the streets safe for people on bikes.

Cherry-picked pedestrian data leads Newsom to the wrong conclusion

In his veto statement for the Freedom to Walk Act, the governor used CHP talking points to blur the truth about what really makes pedestrians most vulnerable: prioritizing fast-moving cars and trucks over human life. People walking don’t stand a chance when two tons of steel take ownership of public streets, and crashes are considered the collateral damage of modern life.

jaywalking Legalize Safe Street Crossings

The biggest problem with Newsom’s cherry-picked SWITRS data is that he didn’t include ALL pedestrian crashes. He just cited fatalities, but fatal crashes represent only a small share of the accidents where cars hit pedestrians, and using this figure gives a distorted picture of street safety.

When you look at all crashes involving a car and a pedestrian, it becomes clear that it’s not those crossing outside of crosswalks that are at most danger. California’s own data show that 44% of all pedestrian crashes occur when someone is “crossing at a crosswalk in an intersection.” Almost 70% of collisions involving pedestrians are caused by the driver disregarding a traffic law.

In addition, SWITRS data is drawn from accident reports prepared by the police, who have a notoriously anti-pedestrian bias. It’s not surprising that police would find pedestrians at fault for “taking actions against traffic controls or safety laws” in 63% of fatal crashes. Police, and our society at large, don’t place enough responsibility on car drivers to share the road responsibly with other road users.

When did the penalty for walking outside of proscribed pedestrian boundaries become a death sentence?

It is inaccurate for the governor, using arguments from the CHP, to insinuate that illegal crossings are the reason for rising pedestrian fatality rates. There’s no evidence of a rise in jaywalking correlated with an increase in pedestrian fatalities. In fact, recent data from the state of Virginia shows the opposite. After the state decriminalized jaywalking earlier this year, initial data indicates that it hasn’t made pedestrians less safe.

But there is a correlation that increased distracted driving and a trend toward higher front grills, mainly on trucks and SUVs, which reduce visibility for drivers and increase the deadliness of car-pedestrian crashes that correlates with this increase.

Also, it is not surprising that the most deadly crashes happen outside of crosswalks, where drivers travel at much higher speeds.

How to get accurate accident data

The prevalence of faulty data in these reports is also an argument for reducing the police role in traffic crash reporting. The movement to refocus police energy away from such activities is growing. For instance, the City of Berkeley is considering transferring that duty to its Transportation Department to allow police officers to focus more on crimes they are better equipped to deal with, an initiative that CalBike supports.

Fact-checking SWITRS accident reports would go a long way toward changing the narrative about who causes the most harm on our street. But it will be a big job to comb through the data, investigate the facts, and prepare more truthful reports. Still, it’s a critical job. If you know someone willing to analyze the SWITRS data and provide more accurate accident data, contact Jared Sanchez at jared@calbike.org.

Newsom Vetoes Freedom to Walk in California

October 11, 2021/by Jared Sanchez

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2021

Contact:
CalBike: Jared Sanchez, jared@calbike.org | 714-262-0921
California Walks: Caro Jauregui, caro@calwalks.org | 562-320-2139
Los Angeles Walks: John Yi, john@losangeleswalks.org | 213-219-2483

Newsom Vetoes Freedom to Walk in California

Movement to End Unjust Jaywalking Laws Will Continue

SACRAMENTO – In a setback for the movement for more equitable streets, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the Freedom to Walk Act (AB 1238, Ting). The law would have ended penalties for safe mid-block pedestrian crossings. CalBike and a coalition of more than 90 groups and individuals supported the repeal of ‘jaywalking’ laws.

“The governor’s veto rests on the belief that police enforcement or the threat of jaywalking tickets will somehow prevent pedestrian fatalities in the future when that has consistently failed in the past. Continuing to criminalize people’s rational, predictable responses to poor infrastructure is simply unjust,” said Jared Sanchez, CalBike Senior Policy Advocate.

Inequities in neighborhood design and street infrastructure leave many lower-income California neighborhoods less than pedestrian-friendly. Because of this, policing jaywalking often amounts to punishing people for the lack of government services in their community.

Legalizing mid-block crossings would have helped protect vulnerable pedestrians against racially biased, pretextual policing, inequitable fees and fines, and unnecessary and potentially lethal interactions with law enforcement.

John Yi, Executive Director of Los Angeles Walks, said, “The Governor’s recent veto represents continued condescension of pedestrians. To think we can penalize our parents, seniors, and students to bow to high-speed traffic at the cost of their own dignity, ease, and safety is draconian and deeply misunderstands the needs of those walking every day. We cannot begin to ask why it is we jaywalk if we are already criminals in the eyes of the state.”

“This is a tremendous loss not only for racial justice across California but also for active transportation as a whole as Governor Newsom failed to recognize the importance of non-automobile modes of travel,” said CalBike’s Sanchez. “But the Freedom to Walk Act has helped spark a national conversation about unjust jaywalking laws that can’t be stopped by one misguided veto.”

###

Governor Newsom Vetoes Bill to Improve Bike Safety

October 11, 2021/by Jared Sanchez

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2021

Contact:

Dave Snyder, 916-251-9433, dave@calbike.org

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

Governor Newsom Vetoes Bill to Improve Bike Safety

Sacramento – The Bicycle Safety Stop Bill (AB 122 – Boerner Horvath, Friedman, Ting) had broad support from the Assembly, the Senate, and people who ride bikes. CalBike is disappointed that Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would make it legal for people on bikes to treat stop signs as yields.

Similar laws are on the books in 10 other states and have been proven to reduce collisions and improve conditions for bike riders. CalBike created a video to explain how the bicycle safety stop works, and more than 75 organizations across the state signed a letter supporting the bill.

“Governor Newsom showed today he doesn’t understand the needs of people who use bikes for everyday transportation. This commonsense law would have reduced conflict between bike riders and car drivers,” said Dave Snyder, Executive Director of CalBike. “I’m disappointed that, while climate change ravages our state, the governor blocked a popular measure that would have helped more people choose carbon-free transportation.”

CalBike Senior Policy Advocate Jared Sanchez said, “CalBike hears complaints every year about punitive sting operations that have nothing to do with safety and are sometimes used as a pretext to stop Black and Latinx people. These police interactions too often have tragic results. The Bicycle Safety Stop Bill would have been a step towards making the streets safer for every Californian.”

Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath, the bill’s original author, said, “We know from the example of other states that when riders are allowed to yield at stop signs, they choose safer streets and will spend less time in dangerous intersections. It’s time for California to live up to its values and start encouraging — not penalizing — smart riding in our state.”

In Delaware, a recent study found that collisions involving bicycles at intersections decreased by 23% after the state made the safety stop legal. The governor’s veto prevents California from joining a long list of states that have implemented the safety stop: Idaho, Delaware, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arkansas, Utah, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. None of those states have reported any safety problems after implementing this rule.

###

California Bicycle Summit to Begin with Cycling for Sustainable Cities Symposium

September 29, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

As the pandemic has broken many of our everyday routines, it has also provided opportunities to improve on the past. That’s the case with the California Bicycle Summit, which will be preceded by three advance symposia: free, online sessions with thought leaders in bicycle advocacy from around California and the world. The first symposium will take place on October 12, 2021, on Zoom.

Register now.

Cycling for Sustainable Cities Summit Symposium

A new way to Summit

Every two years, CalBike convenes the California Bicycle Summit, a gathering of urban planners, government officials, and bike advocates to discuss the future of biking in California. Because of COVID concerns, the in-person event that we would have ordinarily scheduled for October 2021 will happen April 6-8, 2022.

Leading up to that joyous reconvening of the California bicycle advocacy community, we have scheduled three advance symposia. Each will be held on Zoom and is free of charge, but advance registration is required.

Advance Symposium #1: Cycling for Sustainable Cities

One of the advantages of Zoom is that we can pull in leading voices from across geographies. We’re excited to have Ralph Buehler and John Pucher present on Cycling for Sustainable Cities. The two scholars are the editors of Cycling for Sustainable Cities, a must-have anthology for bike advocates.

Cycling should be feasible for as many people as possible and not limited to especially athletic, daring, well-trained cyclists riding expensive bicycles. Their presentation will explore how cities can make city cycling safe, practical, and convenient for a broad spectrum of ages, genders, and abilities.

Buehler and Pucher will discuss the latest cycling trends and policies around the world and consider specific aspects of cycling. Based on data from 2019-2020 from cities worldwide, this session will also review the impacts of COVID-19 on cycling levels, plus government policies to promote cycling.

The presentation will show how the successful promotion of cycling depends on a coordinated package of mutually supportive infrastructure, programs, and policies. After the presentation, there will be breakout sessions to discuss how California cities can turn these ideas into action.

We hope you can join us. Registration is free.

California Bicycle Summit Advance Schedule

Here’s the full schedule for the Advance Symposia

Symposium 1: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm – Cycling for Sustainable Cities

Symposium 2: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm – Lessons from Latin America

Symposium 3: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm – Inspiration for 2022: California Advocacy Success Stories

We look forward to meeting in person at the California Bicycle Summit, April 6-8, 2022, in Oakland, California.

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

September 27, 2021/by Kevin Claxton

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.

California Can Lead the Way in Reclaiming our Streets if Newsom Signs AB 1238

September 21, 2021/by Jared Sanchez

It was the middle of the afternoon in Culver City when Richard Milton left his optometrist to reach the bus stop across the street. “It was in the middle of the block,” he recalled. “There wasn’t any traffic, so I crossed.”

As he walked toward the bus stop, a police car pulled up, and an officer asked Milton, a 66-year-old Black Army veteran, where he was going. Milton said he was headed for the bus stop. The officer wrote him a ticket for jaywalking.

“I just remained mute as he wrote me the ticket,” he said.

What is a ‘jay’ anyway?

“Jaywalking” was invented by auto clubs and car manufacturers 100 years ago. At that time, ‘jay’ was an offensive term to describe an unsophisticated country person.

If someone invented the term today, we might call it “redneck crossings” or “hickwalking.” If those terms sound shocking and rude, that’s the point. We’ve gotten used to the word jaywalking, but we should remember that automakers used prejudice and stigma to enforce a street culture that favored driving over walking. Over time, ‘jaywalking’ has also come to carry racist undertones, as enforcement focuses mainly on policing the movements of Black Americans.

“In the early days of the automobile, it was drivers’ job to avoid you, not your job to avoid them,” says Peter Norton, a historian at the University of Virginia and author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “But under the new model, streets became a place for cars — and as a pedestrian, it’s your fault if you get hit.”

Vox, The forgotten history of how automakers invented the crime of “jaywalking,” 2015

Jaywalking still reinforces prejudice

Richard Milton’s race was likely a factor in his traffic stop for jaywalking. CalBike’s data review shows that Black Californians are as much as 4.3 times as likely to get stopped for jaywalking than white residents.

A recent lawsuit filed for bias against Black people on Rodeo Drive underscores that point. The suit (plaintiffs’ attorneys include Benjamin Crump, who represented George Floyd’s family) alleges that, out of 106 people arrested by a Beverly Hills Police task force in the area, 105 were Black, and one was Latino and appeared Black. Those figures don’t include people stopped and hassled by the police, though there is a video of at least one Black man (a VP at Versace) being stopped and frisked as he left the Rodeo Drive store.

Jaywalking tickets also have unequal impacts. Milton’s citation was for more than $190, which was money he didn’t have. He was fortunate to have access to a program out of Venice that provides volunteer attorneys to represent people who are issued citations. His attorney discovered that the officer had written the wrong code on the citation and had the ticket voided.

Even if he hadn’t had access to an attorney, Milton would have gone to court to fight the ticket because unpaid tickets can keep you from renewing your driver’s license and cause other problems. “It’s a nuisance to have it hanging over your head,” he said.

Intersections are often the least safe places to cross the street

When asked if his run-in with the police has changed his behavior around jaywalking, Milton said, “I still jaywalk.”

“In LA, intersections are bad. They are very bad,” he added. “You see cars coming at you, even though you have the green light.” Then he repeated “It’s not safe,” several times for emphasis.

intersections are often unsafe for pedestrians

In fact, the midblock crossing wasn’t simply the most convenient way to get across the street for Richard Milton. It was a conscious choice for his safety, based on his own harrowing experience.

He knows what he’s talking about. He has been hit by a car twice while walking, both times in the crosswalk. He was fortunate to have suffered only minor injuries, but he has friends who have been seriously injured in crosswalks.

Milton’s concern is backed by statistics. CalBike’s analysis of SWITRS collision data found that 44% of pedestrian collisions in California occurred at intersections. Another study found that, while a quarter of pedestrian injures happen during mid-block crossings, 75% occur elsewhere, including intersections (26%), sidewalks, and the margins of roadways without sidewalks.

Milton doesn’t see the sense of penalizing somebody for choosing the safest way to cross the street based on their experience. If someone made it to the other side of the road and didn’t cause any harm, he said, “Why criminalize them?”

California has a chance to take the lead in reimagining our streets

California was at the forefront of the car-centric movement to chase people on foot out of the roadway. As a recent LAist article noted, LA passed its first jaywalking law in 1925. LA’s laws became a model for the rest of the country. Now, California has the opportunity to lead in the other direction toward a more pedestrian-friendly future.

Already this year, Virginia made jaywalking a secondary offense. It’s still a crime, but an officer can’t initiate a stop because of jaywalking and can’t issue a citation unless they stop you for something else. But the Freedom to Walk Act (AB 1238, Ting) would go a step further in the right direction. It would make safe mid-block crossings legal.

Today, the only thing that stands between California and the freedom to walk is the governor’s signature. If Governor Newsom signs AB 1238, it will still be against the law to disrupt traffic, but people who safely cross, like Richard Milton, will no longer get stopped, questioned, and ticketed by the police. Tell the Governor you support the Freedom to Walk Act, AB 1238.

Tag Archive for: featured

Infrastructure Bill basics

Active transportation funding boost

New standards for automobile safety

But wait, there’s more potential funding

Positive Results for Active Transportation, Amid Disappointments

Progress happened through several channels

Governor Newsom’s lack of vision

Now, some good news

Left in limbo

Watch Cycling for Sustainable Cities:

The governor’s defective data on biking

Cherry-picked pedestrian data leads Newsom to the wrong conclusion

How to get accurate accident data

Newsom Vetoes Freedom to Walk in California

Movement to End Unjust Jaywalking Laws Will Continue

Governor Newsom Vetoes Bill to Improve Bike Safety

A new way to Summit

Advance Symposium #1: Cycling for Sustainable Cities

California Bicycle Summit Advance Schedule

What is a ‘jay’ anyway?

Jaywalking still reinforces prejudice

Intersections are often the least safe places to cross the street

California has a chance to take the lead in reimagining our streets