BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|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: 8/21/14 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
SENATE FLOOR : 31-3, 8/13/14
AYES: Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, Corbett, Correa,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso,
Huff, Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Mitchell,
Monning, Nielsen, Padilla, Pavley, Roth, Steinberg, Torres,
Vidak, Wolk, Wyland
NOES: Anderson, Morrell, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, De Le�n, Galgiani, Hancock, Wright,
Yee
NOTE: This bill passed the Senate on 8/13/14, but a motion for
reconsideration was granted.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 58-16, 1/29/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Bikeways
SOURCE : California Bicycle Coalition
CONTINUED
AB 1193
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill adds a new category of bikeway named
cycletracks or separated bikeways, also known as Class IV
bikeways, 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 specified
conditions are met.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/14 add three requirements to the
conditions under which local agencies may utilize minimum safety
design criteria other than those developed by Caltrans; require
Caltrans to develop minimum safety design criteria for bikeways
in consultation with an external advisory committee dedicated to
improving access to mobility impaired persons; and restore the
four bikeway numerical labels along with their descriptive
names.
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.
Existing law requires all city, county, regional, and other
local agencies responsible for the development or operation of
CONTINUED
AB 1193
Page
3
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.Adds a new category of bikeway called "cycle tracks or
separated bikeways, also referred to as Class IV bikeways"
which promote active transporation and provide a right-of-way
designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a
roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic.
Specifies the types of separation include, but are not limited
to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical
barriers, or on-street parking.
2.Clarifies that Caltrans is required to establish minimum
safety design criteria for the planning and construction 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.
Requires the criteria be established in consultation with an
external advisory committee dedicated to improving access to
mobility impaired persons.
3.Requires Caltrans publish the minimum safety design criteria
by January 1, 2016.
4.Authorizes a local agency to utilize other minimum safety
criteria if the following conditions are met:
A. The alternative criteria have been reviewed and approved
by a qualified engineer with consideration for the unique
characteristics and features of the proposed bikeway and
CONTINUED
AB 1193
Page
4
surrounding environs.
B. The alternative criteria, or the description of the
project with reference to the alternative criteria, are
adopted by resolution at a public meeting, after having
provided proper notice of the public meeting and
opportunity for public comment.
C. The alternative criteria adhere to guidelines
established by a national association of public agency
transportation officials.
1.Repeals a section of existing law pertaining to the permitting
of bikeway design exceptions, which is rendered obsolete by
provisions of this bill.
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
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
CONTINUED
AB 1193
Page
5
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 8/22/14)
California Bicycle Coalition (source)
American Academy of Pediatrics, California District IX
Bike East Bay
California Park and Recreation Society
Cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Jose
Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Napa County Transportation Planning Agency
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
CONTINUED
AB 1193
Page
6
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Shasta Living Streets
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Women on Bikes California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/22/14)
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
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."
CONTINUED
AB 1193
Page
7
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 Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Olsen, Pan, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva,
Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Dahle, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Hagman, Jones, Linder, Maienschein, Melendez, Morrell,
Nestande, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ch�vez, Gorell, Harkey, Logue, Mansoor, Perea
JA:k 8/22/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED