BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1193| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1193 Author: Ting (D), et al. Amended: 7/1/14 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 10-0, 6/26/14 AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Beall, Cannella, Galgiani, Hueso, Lara, Liu, Roth, Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 58-16, 1/29/14 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Bikeways SOURCE : California Bicycle Coalition DIGEST : This bill renames the existing classes of bikeways as bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes respectively; adds a new category of bikeway called cycle tracks as defined; clarifies the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is required to establish minimum safety design criteria for each category of bikeways and provide consideration for the safety of vulnerable populations; and authorizes a local agency to utilize other minimum safety criteria if adopted by a resolution at a public meeting. ANALYSIS : Existing law defines three classes of bikeways as facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel: CONTINUED AB 1193 Page 2 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. 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. This bill: 1.Renames the existing classes of bikeways as "bike paths," "bike lanes," and "bike routes" respectively. 2.Adds a new category of bikeway called "cycle tracks" which CONTINUED AB 1193 Page 3 provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. 3.Clarifies that Caltrans is required to establish minimum safety design criteria for each type of bikeway and provide consideration for the safety of vulnerable populations such as children, seniors, persons with impaired vision, and persons with limited mobility. 4.Requires Caltrans publish the minimum safety design criteria by January 1, 2016. 5.Authorizes a local agency to utilize other minimum safety criteria if adopted by a resolution at a public meeting, as specified. 6.Repeals a section of existing law pertaining to the permitting of bikeway design exceptions, which is rendered obsolete by provisions of this bill. 7.Makes numerous conforming changes to various cross-references pertaining to the renaming of the bikeways. Background 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 CONTINUED AB 1193 Page 4 vehicle lanes or sidewalks is highly diverse, depending on specific street conditions. 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. 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 CHDM, underscoring that its endorsement is not yet reflected in the form of design standards. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/5/14) California Bicycle Coalition (source) American Academy of Pediatrics, California District IX Bike East Bay California Park and Recreation Society CONTINUED AB 1193 Page 5 Cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Jose Inland Empire Biking Alliance Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Napa County Bicycle Coalition Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates San Diego County Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Bicycle Coalition San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Shasta Living Streets Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Silicon Valley Leadership Group Women on Bikes California OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/5/14) California Association of Bicycling Organizations ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, this bill is intended to allow more local control over design standards used to construct bikeway facilities on local streets. The bill's sponsor, California Bicycle Coalition, 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 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 removes 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. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponent believes 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 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 CONTINUED AB 1193 Page 6 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." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 58-16, 1/29/14 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Olsen, Pan, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Dahle, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Jones, Linder, Maienschein, Melendez, Morrell, Nestande, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron NO VOTE RECORDED: Chávez, Gorell, Harkey, Logue, Mansoor, Perea JA:k 8/6/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED