BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 1193
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: TING
VERSION: 6/18/14
Analysis by: Nathan Phillips FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 26, 2014
SUBJECT:
Bikeways
DESCRIPTION:
This bill defines Class IV bikeways, also known as cycle tracks;
directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
to establish safety design criteria for cycle tracks and other
bikeways; and exempts city, county, regional, and other local
agencies from the requirement to utilize all minimum safety
design criteria for bikeways developed by Caltrans in its
Highway Design Manual.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law defines three classes of bikeways as facilities
that provide primarily for bicycle travel:
Class I bikeways, also known as "bike paths" or "shared-use
paths," which provide a completely separated right-of-way for
the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows
by motorists minimized
Class II bikeways, also known as "bike lanes," which provide
a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or
semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor
vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking
and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted
Class III bikeways, also known as onstreet or offstreet
"bike routes," which provide a right-of-way designated by
signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and
motorists
Existing law requires Caltrans, in cooperation with city or
county governments, to establish minimum safety design criteria
for the planning and construction of bikeways, and requires
Caltrans to establish uniform specifications and symbols
regarding bicycle travel and bicycle traffic-related matters.
AB 1193 (TING) Page 2
Existing law requires all city, county, regional, and other
local agencies responsible for the development or operation of
bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted to
utilize all minimum safety design criteria and uniform
specifications and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic
control devices.
Existing law directs Caltrans to develop a process for
permitting design exceptions to bikeways by local governments,
for purposes of research, experimentation, testing, evaluation,
or verification.
Caltrans design specifications for the three existing classes of
bikeways are contained in two main documents: the California
Highway Design Manual (CHDM) and the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
This bill:
Defines Class IV bikeways, also known as cycle tracks or
protected bike lanes, as bikeways that provide a right-of-way
designated exclusively for bicycle travel within a roadway
and which are protected from other vehicle traffic with
devices including, but not limited to, grade separation,
flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or parked cars
Requires Caltrans, in cooperation with local agencies, to
establish minimum safety design criteria and standards for
bikeways, including the new Class IV bikeways.
Allows local governments to have the option, rather than the
(existing) requirement, to utilize Caltrans-developed design
standards for bikeways as published in the CHDM
Repeals a section of code pertaining to the permitting of
bikeway design exceptions, which is rendered obsolete by
provisions in this bill
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, this bill is intended to
allow more local control over design standards used to
construct bikeway facilities on local streets. The sponsor
argues that local governments have existing authority to
design local streets, and there is no compelling reason that
this authority should not extend to the design of locally
AB 1193 (TING) Page 3
owned bikeway facilities. Currently, local agencies wishing
to install innovative bikeway facilities, including cycle
tracks, can only deviate from restricted Caltrans guidelines
at risk of liability exposure, or through an arduous Caltrans
design-exemption process. This bill would remove these
barriers to implementation of cycle tracks by local agencies
by explicitly defining cycle tracks in statute as a class of
bikeway and by requiring Caltrans to develop design guidelines
for cycle tracks that local communities may consult.
2.A major addition . This bill was amended very recently to
allow, rather than require, local governments to adhere to the
CHDM design criteria for bikeways. This amendment constitutes
a major policy shift, as it transfers authority - and the
attendant liability - over all bikeway design from the state
to local governments. The California League of Cities opposes
this bill based on its concern about the exposure of cities to
liability and lawsuits.
3.Cycle tracks . Cycle tracks provide a user experience of
separated bike paths with the road infrastructure of
conventional bike lanes. Cycle tracks are well-established
bikeway facilities in bicycle-friendly European cities, and
are increasingly appearing in California cities, including
Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Davis, and in
other states including New York, Massachusetts, Montana,
Oregon, and in the District of Columbia. The city of Long
Beach cites a dramatic increase in bicycle ridership (50%) and
a dramatic decrease in bicycle crashes (50%) as a result of
the cycle track it installed three years ago.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) reports that there are three main types of cycle
tracks: one-way protected, two-way protected, and raised
cycle tracks, which are vertically separated from the motor
vehicle travel lane, and may be one- or two-way. The nature
of physical or spatial barriers and separation between cycle
tracks and motor vehicle lanes or sidewalks is highly diverse,
depending on specific street conditions.
4.Smart State Transportation Initiative (SSTI) recommendation
and Caltrans' recent endorsement of NACTO guidelines . In
January 2014, the SSTI, an independent organization composed
of transportation experts, former state transportation chief
executives, and academic researchers, released a review of
Caltrans management, operations, and organizational culture.
AB 1193 (TING) Page 4
The study was commissioned by the California Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency (the predecessor of the
California Transportation Agency). A key recommendation of
the report was that the "department should support, or propose
if no bill is forthcoming, legislation to end the archaic
practice of imposing state rules on local streets for bicycle
facilities." More specifically, this recommendation went on
to endorse the quick adoption of "modern guidance as laid out
in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide." This bill serves as
the legislative implementation of the SSTI report
recommendation, and its intent has been explicitly endorsed by
Caltrans.
On April 11, 2014, citing the recommendation in the SSTI
report, Caltrans announced its endorsement of NACTO guidelines
for bikeway innovations, including buffered or separated bike
lanes. In its press release, Caltrans stated that all streets
within cities and towns may use the new guidelines, and that
the guidelines may also be referenced for city streets that
are part of the state highway system. Because this
announcement encompasses and endorses the objectives of this
bill, it raises the question of whether this bill is still
necessary to achieving its stated purpose. Caltrans is
evaluating the guidelines for future updates to the Highway
Design Manual, underscoring that its endorsement is not yet
reflected in the form of design standards.
5.Double down or abandon ship ? This bill proposes a significant
transfer of authority and responsibility over bikeway design
from the state to local government. The perceived merit of
this shift rests on assessments of Caltrans' capacity to
change, adapt, and innovate in response to increasing bicycle
ridership and demands for new bicycle facilities. Bill
proponents and the SSTI review point to a culture of fear,
risk aversion, and inflexibility in Caltrans, which has
prevented it from implementing recent bikeway legislation (AB
819 [Wieckowski] Chapter 715, Statutes of 2012) and which has
led Caltrans to ignore even its own recommendations in its own
visioning and planning documents (e.g., Smart Mobility 2010).
This repeated inaction, bill proponents believe, makes it a
well-justified time to abandon the Caltrans ship.
Bill opponents, on the other hand, believe that rather than
allowing Caltrans to cede its oversight role and
responsibility to local governments, it is time to double down
on Caltrans, hold its feet to the fire, and make it live up to
AB 1193 (TING) Page 5
its legislatively directed charge as principal overseer of
bikeway planning and design. The California Association of
Bicycle Organizations (CABO) points to the California Bikeways
Act of 1975 as a clear statement of the state's fiduciary duty
to address the "functional commuting needs of the employee,
student, businessperson and shopper..., to have the physical
safety of the bicyclist and the bicyclist's property as a
major planning component, and to have the capacity to
accommodate bicyclists of all ages and skills." CABO states
that "What is needed is better compliance mechanisms for
standards, not greater latitude to deviate from them
arbitrarily." Both proponents and opponents have not been
satisfied with Caltrans' action on bikeways; the relative
validity of their diverging opinions rests ultimately on
Caltrans' ability to demonstrate innovation on bikeway design.
Bill proponents see Caltrans' April 11, 2014, press release
as an indication of support for the provisions in AB 1193,
whereas bill opponents see it as evidence that Caltrans is
finally committing to real change in its treatment of
bikeways.
6.Labeling bikeways by class number (I-IV) is uninformative and
confusing . California's three-class bikeway system is
idiosyncratic, and not consistent with national bikeway
classifications (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) or those from other states.
Currently, the three-class bikeway system establishes
completely separated Class I bike paths as arguably the safest
(at least from danger of crashes involving motor vehicles);
Class II bike lanes as generally less safe than Class I
bikeways; and Class III bike routes, which include roadway
sharing with motor vehicles, as potentially the least safe. A
Class IV bikeway, however, combines features of Class I and
Class II bikeways. While professionals may memorize the
differences indicated by such a numerical labeling scheme, the
public will likely be confused by it. The committee may wish
to amend this bill to remove the "class" designations and
instead simply define bikeways as "bike paths," "bike lanes,"
"bike routes," and "cycle tracks."
7.Technical amendment . In 890.4 (d), change "within a roadway"
to "adjacent to a roadway."
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 58-16
AB 1193 (TING) Page 6
Appr: 12-4
Trans: 11-3
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Monday,June 23, 2014.)
SUPPORT: California Bicycle Coalition (sponsor)
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
District IX
Bike Bakersfield
Bike East Bay
Bike Walnut Creek
BIKEable Communities
California Park and Recreation Society
Chico Velo Cycling
Cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Jose
Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club
Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
People Power of Santa Cruz County
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition
Shasta Living Streets
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Women on Bikes California
OPPOSED: California Association of Bicycling
Organizations\
League of California Cities