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