BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 1193
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: TING
VERSION: 1/23/14
Analysis by: Nathan Phillips FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: May 6, 2014
SUBJECT:
Bikeways
DESCRIPTION:
This bill defines Class IV bikeways, also known as cycle tracks,
and directs the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to establish safety design criteria for cycle tracks.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law defines a bikeway as all facilities that provide
primarily for bicycle travel. Existing law defines three
classes of bikeway:
1. 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.
2. Class II bikeways, also known as "bike lanes," which
provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the
exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through
travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but
with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and
motorists permitted.
3. 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 established pursuant to that law.
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.
This bill also requires Caltrans, in cooperation with local
agencies, to establish minimum safety design criteria for Class
IV bikeways, and exempts cycle track research and
experimentation from the existing bikeway safety design criteria
requirements that Caltrans has established.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the sponsor, this bill is intended to
allow more local control over design standards used to
construct bikeway facilities on local streets. 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 the
development of design guidelines for cycle tracks that local
communities may consult.
2.What are 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,
AB 1193 (TING) Page 3
Oregon, and 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.
3.Caltrans' recent endorsement of NACTO guidelines . On April
11, 2014, Caltrans announced its endorsement of NACTO
guidelines for bikeway innovations including buffered or
separated bike lanes, which are consistent with NACTO's
definition of cycle tracks. In its press release, Caltrans
stated that all streets within cities and towns may use the
new guidelines, and that the guidelines would also apply to
city streets that are part of the state highway system. This
announcement encompasses and endorses the objectives of this
bill, raising the question of whether this bill is still
necessary to achieving its stated purpose. The Caltrans
announcement is a statement of endorsement only, but does not
carry the weight of law. Caltrans is evaluating the
guidelines for future updates to the CHDM, underscoring that
its endorsement is not yet formalized as a regulation, nor
reflected in statute. Therefore, this bill may be helpful to
Caltrans' effort to formally adopt NACTO standards for cycle
tracks and other bikeway innovations.
4.Exemption-from-standards clause not warranted . The exemptions
sought in this bill from safety design requirements may not be
warranted, because the code provisions referred to do not
appear to interfere in any reasonable manner with research and
experimentation on cycle tracks. The committee may wish to
delete the exemption from existing safety design requirements.
5.Labeling bikeways by class number (I-IV) is uninformative and
counter-intuitive . The bikeway class labeling system
perpetuated in this bill takes an uninformative labeling
scheme and makes it additionally counter-intuitive.
Currently, there is a semblance of a rationale for the
three-class bikeway system, with completely separated Class I
bike paths being arguably the safest (at least from danger of
AB 1193 (TING) Page 4
crashes involving motor vehicles), Class II bike lanes being
generally less safe than Class I bikeways, and Class III bike
routes, which include roadway sharing with motor vehicles,
being potentially the least safe. A Class IV bikeway combines
features of Class I and Class II bikeways and might better be
described as a hybrid or intermediate of them. While
professionals may memorize the differences indicated by such a
numerical labeling scheme, the public at large, who should
benefit from clarity in understanding and using bicycle
infrastructure, will likely be confused by such a labeling
scheme. The committee may wish to amend this bill to label
bikeways descriptively as "bike paths," "bike lanes," "bike
routes," and "cycle tracks."
6.Technical amendment . On page 2, line 19, strike
"cycletracks" and insert "cycle tracks"
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 30,
2014.)
SUPPORT: California Bicycle Coalition (sponsor)
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
District IX
California Park and Recreation Society
City of Los Angeles
City of Long Beach
City of San Jose
OPPOSED: None received.