Tag: legislation

CalBike’s Agenda for 2025

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A number of organizations have come out with agenda’s for next year, and I’ll cover a few of those in several posts. First, CalBike. I participated in CalBike’s agenda reveal on December 3, and it was disappointing. Mostly videos of talking heads about the past, not much about the future. The breakout I participated in was dominated by a single person who wanted to talk about specific locations and wouldn’t let anyone get a word in edgewise about policy. But CalBike now has a page dedicated to CalBike’s Agenda for 2025, which is clearly presented. CalBike has organized support statewide for progressive legislation which encourages bicycling and makes it safer, and has supported legislation for walkers as well. There isn’t an active statewide organization for walking, unfortunately.

The agenda lists:

  • bicycle highways
  • shared streets
  • quick-build pilot
  • bike omnibus #2
  • bicycle safety stop
  • new bike boulevard classification
  • e-bike policy

Though e-bikes modified to be (illegal) motorcycles is not a big problem in Sacramento area, yet, it is in other places. San Francisco, where I am right now, is full of deliveristas on bikes that have pedals and chains, but top out about 40 mph. In the Lake Tahoe region, it is rich high school students. I’d like to see legislation to clearly define what is and is not an e-bike, and make sure high speed devices are banned from bike lanes and bike facilities. It is already illegal (AB 1774 Dixon, 2024) to modify an e-bike for higher speeds, or to sell devices which bypass design speed, but of course enforcement is uncertain.

The bicycle safety stop should be a no-brainer, except of course that Newsom and CHP probably don’t have brains. Treating stop signs as yield signs, slowing and yielding when necessary, is what almost all bicyclists already do, and there is nothing unsafe about it. Research has indicated that the rate of full and complete stops at stop signs is nearly the same for bicyclists and drivers, but when bicyclists stop, then are in danger of getting hit from behind by drivers not stopping, and the energy to get started again is significant, not just a press of the gas pedal.

Shared street standards are a good idea. Many locations have implemented shared streets, with different designs. As a new idea to be experimented with, wide variation was OK, but enough is known about designs now to create a standard. Some cities have continually lessened the protection and messaging on shared streets (or removed them completely, in the case of Sacramento), and standards would help prevent this erosion. I think shared streets should be more common that ‘regular’ streets. Shared streets are where people live, regular streets are where people drive.

I’m not sure whether state-recognized quick-build designs would help much. Cities are already doing these projects, and the best thing Caltrans could do is get out of the way.

photo of Sacramento 26th St slow & active street, since terminated
Sacramento 26th St slow & active street, since terminated

SacTA Board 2024-10-10

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I realize that posting meetings so close to the meeting makes it impossible to schedule your possible attendance, and sometimes even to submit comments through email. But it is still useful, I think, to keep up on transportation issues and government agencies. Discussion and even decisions on the agenda are often not the final word.

The Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA – I label it SacTA rather than STA, to distinguish from the California State Transportation Agency which goes by STA or CalSTA) Board of Directors will meet today, Thursday, October 10, at 1:30 PM in the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors chambers, 700 H Street in downtown Sacramento. The agenda can be viewed on the SacTA Board Meetings page, or here. The entire meeting packet is available on SacTA, but it is quite a large document, and you may find looking at individual agenda items to be more efficient. I’ve commented on a linked to three items of greatest interest to me.

Agenda 08: SB 1 Cycle 4 Local Partnership Program (competitive) Project Prioritization

There are two projects to be prioritized for application to the state SB 1 Local Partnership Program, one related to the I Street Bridge Replacement project, and the other for a transit bus yard, hydrogen buses, and hydrogen refueling in north Sacramento, and other transit and transportation projects. Generally only one submitted project is funded, so the prioritization is important.

I don’t have any strong feelings about the two projects, though I will caution that the rush to hydrogen, which is fueled (pun intended) by strong federal, state and local subsidies, is risky. Though hydrogen fuel cells may turn out to be the best solution for some transit routes, the paucity of green hydrogen (that does not rely on fossil fuels or biomass conversion), and the lack of really addressing this issue, is concerning. Much of hydrogen boosterism comes from the fossil fuel industry, trying to maintain its grip on our energy system.

I think everyone would agree that the I Street Bridge replacement is critical, but the city has made sure that it is an expensive trophy bridge rather than a utilitarian bridge.

Agenda 11: Potential Legislative Changes (I’ll let you read the full agenda item title)

The charter for SacTA, established with the passage of the existing Measure A (not the failed Measure As) limits the agency to pass-through of transportation funds to local transportation agencies, with limited influence over the projects implemented. The ‘Measure C’ proposal by SMART (Sacramento Metro Advocates for Rail and Transit) and Mayor Steinberg, places an emphasis on transit, housing, and safe streets. And no roadway capacity expansion. The measure being considered by SacRT, for the City of Sacramento and Elk Grove portion of its service area, would provide some support for infill transit oriented development and first mile/last mile active transportation, but would be primarily for transit. SacTA does not have the authority to fund anything other than direct transportation projects. This agenda item would allow SacTA to consider legislation to broaden it mandate to include housing or housing-supportive infrastructure related to transportation.

It is not clear whether any measure proposed by SacTA would approach the model proposed by active transportation and transit advocates, but this idea is worth pursuing.

I support this agenda item.

Agenda 12: Consider the Creation of a Temporary New Transportation Funding Subcommittee

This agenda item would form a subcommittee to explore the possibility of, and chances for success, of a 2026 transportation sales tax measure sponsored by SacTA.

We know that a transportation measure heavily weighted towards roadway capacity expansion has failed and will fail, but with a possible shift in priorities to roadway maintenance (fix-it-first), transit and active transportation, there is some chance of success. If Proposition 5 passes this November, it is possible that a ballot measure in 2026 would require only a 55% yes vote, rather than a 67% yes vote, which is difficult to pass in Sacramento County with its strong suburban and semi-rural opposition to all taxes.

Several transportation advocacy organizations are opposed to any additional sales taxes since they are regressive, having a much greater impact on low-income people than other taxes. However, at this time, it does not looks as though any of the potential proposals uses alternative taxes.

I support this agenda item.

Legislation I’d like to see

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In all my spare time, which means while commuting to work on my bike, I think about state legislation I’d like to see. Here is my list of the moment. Feel free to add suggestions.

Bicycling

  • Remove far-to-the-right bike lane provisions, CVC 21202
  • Flip parking in bike lanes from permissible unless posted to prohibited unless posted
  • Require that all signals detect bicycles within two years
  • Be explicit in CVC that placing waste containers in bike lanes is the same violation as leaving any material in a travel lane
  • Require that all waste containers be inscribed with ‘do not place in bike lane’, and have reflective stripes on the sides of the container
  • Implement ‘Idaho stop law’ (yield as stop) for stop sign controlled intersections

Pedestrians

  • Require full traffic studies for the removal or crosswalks or prohibition of crossing, with the default position being that crosswalks will not be removed and prohibitions will not be created or continued
  • Remove the prohibition on pedestrians crossing the street between signalized intersections on all streets 30 mph or less

Speed

  • Change the prima facie speed limit for residential and commercial streets (local) from 25 mph to 20 mph; change to 20 mph or less for posted school zones
  • Set the maximum speed allowable on collector streets to 30 mph; set the maximum allowable speed on arterial streets to 40 mph
  • Allow automated speed enforcement everywhere

Schools

  • Require law enforcement to send incident reports involving children going to or from school to school districts within 24 hours of completion, and investigations within 72 hours of completion
  • Prohibit U-turns within school zones
  • K-12 school districts and colleges/university would be required to have transportation demand management programs, since school-related traffic is a significant portion or overall traffic

Other

  • Shift the burden of proof to the motor vehicle driver for all collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists involving fatality or severe injury
  • Allow any citizen to challenge the professional license of an engineer who is aware of a traffic safety hazard and fails to request funding to mitigate that hazard
  • Decriminalize transit fare evasion
  • Allow conversion of any and all freeway lanes to toll

legislation update

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

There are several bills before the California Legislature that would affect bicycling, walking, and livability. For additional information, see Richard Masoner’s Cyclelicious blog (search for “legislation”) and the California Bicycle Coalition’s 2013 Legislative Agenda page.

AB-184: Statute of limitations: lengthens statue of limitation for hit and run, probably a good bill

AB-206: Vehicles: length limitations: buses: bicycle transportation devices (SacRT): amended to add an onerous process for approval, but probably still a good bill

AB-417: Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act: bicycle transportation plan: no changes so far, a good bill

AB-666: Automated traffic enforcement systems: violations: red light cameras, it restarts the program, but with civil rather than criminal penalties, supported by CaliforniaWALKS and California Bicycle Coalition; hearing in Assembly Judiciary 04/23/13

AB-738 Public entity liability: bicycles: no changes so far, still a bad bill; hearing in Assembly Judiciary 04/23/13

AB-840: Vehicles: driver’s licenses: application requirements: stripped of all bicycling knowledge language, now only requires that drivers license applicants acknowledge the dangers of distracted driving

AB-956: Vehicle accidents: fleeing: no changes so far

AB-1002: Vehicles: registration fee: sustainable communities strategies: changed to remove urgency language and detail use for sustainable communities; still a good bill; hearing in Assembly Transportation 04/22/13

AB-1179 Regional transportation plan: sustainable communities strategy: schoolsites: language slightly diluted, still a good bill

AB-1193 Bikeways: allows cities and counties to use industry standards rather than the requiring the use of the Highway Design Manual; language improved, a great bill; hearing in Assembly Local Government 04/24/13

AB-1194: Safe Routes to School Program; maintains SRTS program at state level, added non-infrasture, statewide coordinator, and TARC; better; hearing in Assembly Transportation 04/15/13, 1:30PM

AB-1290: Transportation planning: broadens representation on the California Transportation Commission and requires reports on progress of transportation agencies in reaching sustainable community goals; seems to be a good bill; hearing in Assembly Transportation 04/29/13

AB-1371: Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance: this bill originally had a different purpose, and was revised to be a three foot passing law, it looks to me to be good; hearing in Assembly Transportation 04/22/13

Please let me know if you are aware of any other bills. I’ve signed up for tracking on these particular bills, but may not be keeping up to date.