Clean RIDES is a multi-state coalition working to make our transportation systems greener and more equitable. CalBike is part of this effort, which involves more than 100 organizations. By creating a network of state-focused organizations supporting the same mission, Clean RIDES seeks to build a powerful, national movement to effect the kinds of change CalBike has worked toward in California for many years.
Transportation decisions are made at the state level
While the current federal regime may seek to wipe bike lanes off the map, the truth is that most transportation decisions, including funding, are made at the state level. Clean RIDES is creating a network of organizations working to influence state transportation policies in a coordinated way.
The coalition will build strength through idea-sharing and support and give a louder voice to the demands for clean transportation options, both at the state and federal levels. The group is committed to using an equity lens and making sure that the voices of the most impacted communities are centered in its policy decisions.
The Clean RIDES Network currently includes seven states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania. The California effort is led by ClimatePlan, a coalition focused on creating a sustainable and equitable California; CalBike is a member of the Advisory Board and actively collaborates on policy work within the coalition. Clean RIDES hopes to add more states to the network as the movement expands.
Next steps for Clean RIDES
The Clean RIDES Network has outlined a five-year, multi-state campaign to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. State networks, including the one CalBike is part of in California, are excited to jump in and start the work.
Clean RIDES is a bold and ambitious effort at a time when we need bold and ambitious ideas to combat climate change and increase transportation equity. CalBike is proud to be a part of this innovative coalition.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/San-Francisco-bus.jpg37125568Kendra Ramseyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKendra Ramsey2025-04-01 18:00:352025-04-01 18:00:36Clean RIDES Network Launches in California
The Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, one of CalBike’s sponsored measures, would create a pilot to build connected, protected bike networks in two California regions. This sounds exciting, but since California doesn’t have any bike highways yet, it’s helpful to step back and explain the concept.
What is a bike highway?
The most basic definition of a bike highway is a connected, protected bikeway network that allows people to move quickly and safely over longer distances. That might look like a scaled-down version of a car freeway, with limited access, interchanges, and even elevated sections to pass over other roads.
But a bike highway network doesn’t need all the bells and whistles to fulfill its mission of providing safe, swift passage for bike riders. Some communities already have many of the pieces of a bike network and they simply need to be knit together to create a bike highway.
The Ohlone Greenway, a Class 1 separated path that travels through multiple cities, following a right of way under elevated Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tracks and cutting through the middle of blocks beside parks, is an excellent example of what’s possible. It’s identified as part of the East Bay Greenway in a Caltrans study of Bay Area bike highways. The greenway has been extended over time, and there are plans to extend it further south; it could be extended and connected to other protected bikeways, either on- or off-street. To become a fully functional bike highway, the network would need improved street crossings, clear signage, and connections to more of the most common destinations in the region. The Caltrans study details what’s possible and outlines the benefits of building bike highways.
Another example is the LA River Path, an eight-mile Class 1 path that follows the Los Angeles River. The path is slated for expansion and is integral to LA’s plan for a car-free Olympics in 2028.
Other cities have segments that could be built out into bike highways. These might look like pathways through parks, beachside bikeways, rails-to-trails facilities, and protected bikeways on city streets. The key features are connection, safety, and speed.
As with all bicycle networks, the trickiest element is safe street crossings, particularly at busy intersections. Bike highways need intersections where bicycle safety is a primary concern, not a nice-to-have. Protected intersections could include bicycle traffic signals with bike-only phases.
Auckland example
Several years ago, Sam Corbett of Alta Planning + Design gave a presentation on the bicycle highway network in Auckland, New Zealand at the California Bicycle Summit. Auckland has an impressive network of separated bikeways, often with colorful pavement, sometimes elevated to allow continuous passage without navigating intersections.
While the realities of dense urban spaces and funding limitations may not allow California to build beautiful bike highways like those in Auckland, we can take them as an aspirational example. This bill is the first step on that journey.
View Sam Corbett’s presentation about Auckland for some inspiration!
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/BH-5-e1743552693464.jpg7481500Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-04-01 17:13:242025-04-01 17:13:25Gearing Up for Bike Highways
CalBike supported the Caltrans Data Bill, SB 695, in 2023. Starting January 1, 2026, the bill requires Caltrans to post information about projects from the prior fiscal year. But first, the new law tasked Caltrans with releasing project stats going back to 2018. CalBike has reviewed the data, which showed Caltrans was reluctant to install protected bikeways while installing more paint-only bikeways.
Caltrans built 554 new highway miles over the period covered by this data, at a time when California needs to reduce, not increase, vehicle miles traveled. At the same time, the agency built just 160 miles of bikeways, more than half of which were Class 3 lanes where bike riders share the lane with motor vehicle traffic.
While the SB 695 data doesn’t provide enough detail to fully understand Complete Streets projects on state routes, this first release of data shows that Caltrans isn’t doing enough to meet California’s goals to increase biking and walking.
Caltrans bikeways prioritized paint over protection
From the 2018/19 fiscal year through 2022/23, Caltrans added 160.37 miles of bikeways on state-controlled roads. Every Caltrans district and every California county saw some amount of Caltrans bike infrastructure, though in some cases, the amount was very small.
The total number of miles is less impressive when you break it down by class. More than half — 93 miles — was Class 3 bikeways. Class 3 bikeways are lanes with shared bicycle/car traffic, often delineated by sharrows. Caltrans also counts shoulder widening as building Class 3 bikeways; it’s hard to know how much of the 93 miles were wider shoulders on rural routes or simply regular travel lanes to be shared with bicyclists.
Another 53.2 miles were Class 2 bike lanes: lanes marked by paint. While reviewing project files for our Incomplete Streets report, we discovered that Caltrans counted the repainting of existing Class 2 bike lanes as adding Complete Streets to a project. We don’t know what percentage of the 53.2 miles were new lanes and what was simply repainting existing lanes.
Class 1 bikeways are off-road paths completely separated from vehicular traffic. Caltrans reported 11.97 miles, or a little less than 3 miles per year in the whole state of California, over the four-year period.
Caltrans built just 2.2 miles of Class 4 bikeways — separated on-street bikeways with physical protection from car traffic. That’s about half a mile per year. Many local governments in our state built more protected bikeway miles during this period.
Bikeway trends over time and space
The pandemic appears to have taken a bite out of Caltrans bike projects. It built a little more than 50 miles of bikeways in 2019 but just 4.4 miles in 2020. By 2023, that number had crept back up to 44.4 miles. The percentage of different classes of bikeway fluctuated over the covered time period, but 71% of the total bikeway miles added in 2023 were Class 3, only slightly less than in 2019.
The geographic distribution of bicycle infrastructure was also uneven. More than half of the Class 3 bikeways were added in just two counties: 37.7 miles in Kings County and 30 miles in San Bernardino County. San Diego County had 14 miles of Class 3. These three counties accounted for 81 of the 93 miles of Class 3 bikeways, likely reflecting specific projects underway during the years in question.
Caltrans added the least bike infrastructure in Merced County over this four-year period: just 0.04 miles of Class 1 path. That’s about 211 feet. The Caltrans District with the fewest miles of bikeway installed was Caltrans District 12, which covers Orange County: 1.1 miles. That included 0.1 miles of Class 1, 0.9 miles of Class 2, 0.1 miles of Class 3, and no Class 4 bikeways.
It’s not possible to draw definitive conclusions from this data, especially without knowing more about the specifics of the projects and what the bikeways actually look like. What is clear from the information we have is that Caltrans rarely built protected bikeways while installing many more miles of paint-only bikeways.
Uneven sidewalks
The data also included sidewalk construction and reconstruction. Over the four-year period of this reporting, Caltrans built 47.9 miles of new sidewalks and reconstructed another 28.9. The pandemic didn’t seem to have as big an effect on sidewalk construction; it went up in 2020 and has bounced up and down in the years since.
There was sidewalk work in every district, with some notable highs and lows. District 12, once again, built the fewest sidewalks, with 0.1 miles of new sidewalks and 1.5 miles reconstructed. Amador County had the fewest sidewalk improvements, just 0.03 miles of new sidewalk. Santa Clara and Solano Counties had no new sidewalks and less than a mile of reconstructed sidewalks.
At the other end of the scale, Los Angeles County got 17.68 miles of new sidewalks and 5.73 miles reconstructed. LA alone accounted for almost a third of the sidewalk construction on state-controlled routes.
Again, it’s hard to draw too many conclusions without reviewing the original project documents, which are not available online. And the report doesn’t quantify other pedestrian elements that may be vital during road repair projects, such as new crosswalks or protected intersections.
Highways keep on truckin’
Caltrans built 554 miles of new highways during this four-year window, a time when major climate disasters were accumulating across California. It’s past time to stop building new highways and spend our transportation resources on other travel modes.
While some of the new miles were ramps and interchanges, almost 40% — 214 miles — were general purpose lanes that will add more vehicle miles traveled, more pollution, and more climate stress.
Almost a quarter of all the new highway building was done in LA County, though the majority of that road building was High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) and toll lanes rather than general purpose lanes. San Bernardino County built the most new general purpose roadway: 62 miles.
More data = good
There are additional tables with information about buildings moved and planned and pending projects. You can find it all at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/asset-management/select-state-highway-system-project-outcomes.
As we get more data from Caltrans, more trends and avenues for improvement will become apparent. The SB 695 reports should, over time, become a helpful resource to track Caltrans’ progress toward focusing on projects that serve all road users.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Car-priority-on-Beach-Boulevard.jpg588627Laura McCamyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngLaura McCamy2025-04-01 15:47:222025-04-01 15:47:23New Data Sheds Light on Caltrans Projects
Response time and access for emergency responders are critical for safety. But, all too often, fire departments see the elements of street design that make our shared spaces safer for people biking and walking as barriers to fast response. Speed humps, protected bikeways, narrower lanes, and protected intersections that slow vehicle turning movements are among the features sometimes opposed by firefighters, without evidence that these features measurably slow response times. So CalBike, along with Streets for All and many local street safety advocates, opposes the Increase Fire Department Authority Bill, AB 612.
Firefighters are not traffic engineers
Fire codes requiring a street width of 20 to 26 feet have been used to oppose bike lanes that would narrow the vehicular space less than those widths, though often, the roadway space usable by fire vehicles would remain the same. With wildfires now more commonly encroaching on dense neighborhoods, this concern is heightened.
While access to a fire is crucial, it’s unclear why bikeways would create impediments while the many other things taking up space on the street — parked cars, dumpsters, etc. — do not. Add to this the fact that the majority of calls firefighters respond to are medical emergencies rather than fires, and it would seem like bikeways, which slow vehicle speeds and reduce injuries and fatalities for all users, would be a benefit rather than a problem.
The right way to approach fire and street safety
Fire department concerns should be carefully considered when making changes to the layout of a street. However, uninformed opposition shouldn’t derail well-thought-out plans to make our shared space safer and more appealing for people biking and walking.
The Increase Fire Department Authority Bill would expand the veto power of fire departments on new road projects. This would force all California communities to consider access for fire vehicles first and road safety second, even though many more people die or are injured by traffic violence than by fires.
Providing fire departments with an additional poorly defined and poorly understood method of vetoing roadway safety projects will ultimately slow down or halt the shift toward safer roads in California’s cities. Fire departments have neither the resources nor the expertise to design streets and will have to rely on transportation departments to implement engineering changes.
There is a better way. Last year, the City of Berkeley created a street trauma prevention position within its fire department. That person will be responsible for mediating between the needs of vulnerable road users for safer streets and the access needs of first responders. It’s a bold and creative approach that could get fire departments beyond “no” to a more nuanced understanding of and approach to street safety.
CalBike opposes AB 612 as written but looks forward to working with the proponents. We hope to change the measure to one that supports a holistic approach to street safety. Today, CalBike, along with almost 30 allied organizations, sent the letter below, explaining our opposition to the bill unless it’s amended.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/bus-bike-and-car-lanes-cut.jpg6421600Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-03-19 19:21:112025-03-19 19:21:13CalBike Opposes Bill Giving Fire Departments More Control of Bikeways
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) provides one of the only statewide funding sources dedicated to biking and walking infrastructure projects. It is chronically underfunded, receiving far more excellent applications than it can greenlight, and recent cuts have made the situation even more dire.
Now, 13 senators and assemblymembers have signed on to a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. They are throwing their support behind the campaign to restore $400 million taken from the ATP in 2024.
Deep cuts to bike infrastructure
The ATP was targeted for cuts by the governor in the past two tight fiscal years. In 2023, legislators were able to restore funding for this program, which is one of California’s most equity-focused transportation programs and also one that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by making biking, walking, and taking transit safer and more appealing.
In 2024, legislators were only able to restore $200 million of the $600 million originally cut from the program. That allowed Cycle 7 of ATP grants to move forward, but the reduced funds meant that only 13 projects got funding, and local communities are rethinking their reliance on the ATP.
A demand to restore funding
Last year’s budget deal between the governor and the legislature called for restoring the $400 million cut from the ATP if future funds became available. CalBike and our allies have campaigned for the restoration of those funds, and that’s exactly what the letter signed by these legislators asks for. They note that $400 million could fund an additional 36 high-scoring projects from the ATP’s Cycle 7.
It’s rare for legislators to go on the record with a demand like this, and we commend them for supporting active transportation. If any of these legislators represents you, please send them a message thanking them.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/QB-3.jpg256768Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-03-18 15:20:212025-03-18 16:53:43California Legislators Stand Up for the Active Transportation Program
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a work group meeting on March 5, 2025, to get feedback on proposed changes for the next application window of the E-Bike Incentive Project. Around 270 people attended the meeting, showing that interest in the program remains strong. Here is a summary of the proposed changes.
Current status of the program
CARB presented the current status of the program, including eligibility, specifications for eligible e-bikes, and the amount of the vouchers. Throughout the work group, questions and comments were a mix of concerns and issues with applying for vouchers and suggestions about proposed changes.
In the first application window, on December 18, 2024, there were 37,000 people in the waiting room by the time the portal opened at 6:00 p.m. Applicants in the work group reported being confused about the process and the difference between the waiting room and being in queue to apply.
By 6:42 p.m. on December 18, the first 1,500 people had completed their applications and the portal closed. At that point, there were nearly 100,000 people in line hoping to get e-bike vouchers. In the weeks after the launch, CARB and the program administrator fielded 20,000 inquiries about the program.
As of March 5, almost all of the first 1,500 applications have been reviewed, and 800 people have redeemed vouchers to buy e-bikes, amounting to a disbursement of approximately $1 million. CARB reported that 97% of applicants so far fall into the high-priority categories because they make less than 225% of the federal poverty level, live in an environmentally disadvantaged community, or live in a low-income census tract.
Proposed improvements for the next application window
Attendees had numerous complaints about the chaotic application process in the first window. People would like to be able to set up an account ahead of time and upload their paperwork. Unfortunately, according to Shaun Ransom, the CARB staffer in charge of the E-Bike Incentive Project, the cost to create all those accounts is prohibitive because interest is so high.
Several people, including those representing community-based organizations (CBOs) partnering with the project complained that the short notice for the first application window (less than two weeks) didn’t give them or their communities enough time to prepare. CARB promised to give 30 days notice of future application opportunities and send multiple emails to alert people to get ready.
Some commenters thought the windows were or should be a lottery. The first come, first served model disadvantages people with slower internet speeds or less access to technology. CARB’s proposal for the next application window is to add a randomizer, making selection more like a lottery. Applicants would have a half hour window during which they could enter a waiting room. After 30 minutes, the waiting room would close and the randomizing software would choose 1,500 people at random. Those people would get a link to enter the application portal. Those not chosen would be notified immediately and wouldn’t need to wait in line.
Administering a program with such overwhelming demand presents technical challenges. Despite rumors and reports to the contrary, the first window went relatively smoothly and avoided crashing the servers. CARB’s proposed changes should make the process clearer for applicants and fairer for those who need more time to log on to the website.
A greater role for community organizations
The CBO network working with the E-Bike Incentive Project raises awareness of the program among underserved communities and helps members of those communities navigate the application process and buy an e-bike. However, CBO representatives reported having little to do after the first launch because few or none of the people they serve were able to secure vouchers. CARB presented a proposal to administer 500 vouchers directly through CBOs to allow them to connect people with the greatest need of inexpensive, sustainable transportation to the incentive program.
CalBike has advocated for direct distribution through CBOs. It gives people who might have a hard time applying online because of issues with internet access, language barriers, disabilities, or other barriers a chance to benefit from the program. CBOs can identify people who are likely to get the most use from an e-bike and provide after-purchase support with group rides and in-person safety classes.
However, the current CARB proposal is to distribute 500 vouchers through CBOs and 1,000 through the online portal during the next application window. We believe the pace of distribution is too slow, particularly given the enormity of the need. We will urge CARB to make the CBO distribution additive to the total vouchers available in the window, rather than subtractive, and distribute 2,000 vouchers during the next application cycle.
Program administrator applications opening
CARB awarded the contract to administer the initial $10 million approved by the legislature to Pedal Ahead. The agency later added another $3 million to the program and allocated an additional $18 million in a subsequent budget. The additional $3 million was initially added to the first $10 million contract but may now be shifted to the second tranche of funding, increasing that to $21 million.
Applications to administer the second tranche of funding will open and close in the second quarter of 2025. CARB plans to announce the third-party administrator for the next round of e-bike incentives in the third quarter of this year.
A recording of the work group will be available in two weeks, and we’ll add it to this post. In the meantime, here are the slides.
(SACRAMENTO) – Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) introduced AB 954, which would launch a pilot program for Caltrans to develop a bike highway program. Offering full separation from motor vehicles, bike highways accommodate high volumes of people traveling longer distance on bicycles (more than 3 miles) by connecting users to major destinations, employment centers, and transit hubs. CalBike is a sponsor of this measure.
“I’d like to see California elevate our offerings to our residents,” said Assemblymember Steve Bennett. “We must strengthen and diversify the connections neighborhood to neighborhood and from city to city. Bike highways provide the highest sense of safety and will attract more people to take advantage of their bikes. If you build it, they will come.”
“The Bicycle Highways Bill will create a safe, separated bikeway network, similar to California’s highway system,” said CalBike Policy Director Jared Sanchez. “This is an essential step to make getting around by bike a viable option for more Californians. We know better infrastructure leads to more biking and we know that more biking is crucial to combat climate change, so CalBike is excited to sponsor this bill.”
Kate Faulkner, Government Liaison for Channel Islands Bike Club said: “Channel Islands Bicycle Club, representing over 300 members, supports the Bicycle Highway Bill. Bike Highways will reduce traffic congestion, improve fitness and health, and provide travel options for those who don’t feel safe cycling on roads. Studies have shown that many people, particularly families, women, and seniors, would choose to bike if safe options are convenient and available.”
“The Bicycle Highway Pilot Program under AB 954 is a vital investment in both infrastructure and people. For BikeVentura.org, it’s an opportunity to expand our mission of delivering critical bicycle safety education to underserved communities, ensuring they can thrive in a transportation system designed with equity and safety at its core. BikeVentura stands proudly with Assemblymember Bennett on this transformative initiative,” said Lawrence Abele, Board Member of Bike Ventura.
Assemblymember Bennett has supported active transportation throughout his tenure in the State Legislature and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. He is chair of the Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Transportation, Climate Change, Natural Resources, and Energy.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Father-and-daughter-bike-path-scaled.jpg14402560CalBike Staffhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngCalBike Staff2025-03-06 12:25:552025-03-06 14:15:42California to Launch Bike Highway Pilot Program Under Bennett Bill
Robert Prinz from Bike East Bay and Warren Wells from the Marin County Bicycle Coalition contributed to this post.
Note: This post was updated on April 2, 2025.
Bay Area bicycle coalitions, with support from a broad range of local groups plus statewide and national advocates, have been fighting for over a year to keep the bike path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge open 24/7. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will hold a final vote to decide the fate of the path on Thursday, April 3, 2025 — two weeks later than the original date.
CalBike will attend the April 3 hearing and testify, and we hope you will, too, no matter where you live. If you’ve ever ridden over this bridge, you know the value of having bike access connecting the East Bay and Marin County. You can testify virtually; sign up to be notified when the item comes up.
Update: The hearing date has been postponed twice and the date for the new hearing hasn’t been announced. Sign up to get notified of the new hearing date. It’s crucial for supporters of bicycle and pedestrian access to this vital bay crossing to have our voices heard.
A local fight with statewide implications
CalBike doesn’t usually get involved in campaigns for local infrastructure other than offering support when asked. Our local partners are excellent at this advocacy and know their territory better; plus, we don’t have the capacity to weigh in on the many local projects throughout California. However, we feel the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge fight has statewide implications and calls for support from allies around California.
Last year, we signed onto a letter in support of the path with many other organizations.
Advocates, including CalBike, have worked for decades to gain bicycle access to all of the Bay Area’s toll bridges. CalBike has supported measures to keep the bicycle and pedestrian pathways on our bridges toll-free to ensure the broadest access, including the passage of AB 2669 in 2024, making toll bridges free permanently for people walking and biking.
Securing a path on the Richmond-San Rafael was a decades-long effort. The path, placed in what was formerly a breakdown lane, opened in the fall of 2019 for a four-year pilot period. It has proven immensely popular and spurred cities on both sides of the bridge to upgrade their bicycle infrastructure to improve access. Automated counters installed on the bridge show that more than 400,000 people have walked or ridden across the bridge since the path opened. Many of these are people going to work, school, and other destinations across the bridge — trips that would likely be by car without the bike path.
Opponents of the path started a movement to get rid of the path on Mondays through Thursdays, converting it into a car breakdown shoulder by moving an existing zipper barrier. The shoulder would be converted back into a biking and walking path only Thursday evening through Sunday evening under this plan.
The plan includes a shuttle for people who want to cross with a bike, but the hours are limited, it wouldn’t accommodate adaptive bicycles, it will only come every half hour outside commute hours, and future funding is uncertain. People biking and walking would have continuous access to the Richmond-San Rafael crossing for just three days out of the week.
Those favoring adding more traffic on the bridge cite increased pollution in Richmond and worsening traffic, even though the air quality study they point to does not show an impact from the path. Emissions data has shown reduced pollution on the upper deck where the trail was added but increased pollution during winter months on the lower deck with the additional car lane.
Caltrans data shows only a slight increase in commute times. Travel speeds on the upper deck of the bridge are lower since the path was added and there’s been a significant reduction in collisions on that level, while the number of crashes has increased on the lower deck where a third car lane was added.
Ultimately, attempting to “fix” car congestion by making it easier to drive will lead to more traffic, more pollution, and just as much congestion. Induced demand is real, no matter how much people want to wish it away.
Protecting the right to bike and walk everywhere
Bicycle and pedestrian access to California’s bridges is crucial. Bridges are vital links between communities that can’t be replicated on surface streets. This is particularly true in the Bay Area, where bridges provide connections across the snaking arms of the San Francisco Bay.
The Richmond-San Rafael pathway pilot has been a success. People bike and walk across the span for recreation and commuting. Moving forward, we need more options for active transportation, not fewer.
CalBike is showing up to speak up for bridges that serve everyone. We hope you will too.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/RSR-bridge-ride-with-BEB-e1695844242116-600x353-1.jpg353600Laura McCamyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngLaura McCamy2025-03-05 19:39:492025-04-02 13:54:35Advocates Fight Potential Loss of Bike/Ped Access to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
On February 20, 2025, CalBike held the first in a series of virtual Summit Sessions, a quarterly webinar series continuing the groundbreaking discussions of the California Bicycle Summit throughout the year. Over 150 people attended the webinar, Creative Approaches to Funding Active Transportation Infrastructure, where a panel of speakers shared diverse resources municipalities can use to fund biking and walking infrastructure.
Thinking outside the ATP
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is California’s only dedicated funding source for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. The program disburses grants in two-year cycles, funded through federal and state sources including Senate Bill 1 gas tax funds. The program is consistently oversubscribed and only able to award the highest-scoring projects, demonstrating the need for additional funding sources for active transportation projects.
California Transportation Commission Deputy Director for Traditional Programming Laurie Waters gave a high-level overview of six programs beyond the ATP:
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
Local Streets and Roads Program
Local Partnership Program
Solutions for Congested Corridors
For each program, Waters outlined the amount of funding available, what percentage of it is competitive versus granted to agencies based on a distribution formula, the types of projects typically funded, and the name of the program manager at CTC. Her slides are below. Relevant to the discussion, CalBike won a major victory in 2024 with the passage of the Complete Streets Law, which will increase active transportation and transit improvements in SHOPP projects in coming years.
Brianne Logasa, an associate planner with the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC), and Marc Caswell, an advisor with SGC, presented on Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding for transportation projects. AHSC receives 20% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, with revenue generated through California’s Cap and Trade program.
The minimum grant through AHSC is $10 million, with transportation projects capped at $15 million. A typical project might include infill affordable housing, park space, sidewalks and paths, and bikeways. This funding can be used for a range of amenities beyond sidewalks and bike lanes, including bike racks, wayfinding, lighting, and bike racks on buses.
Local agencies can partner with developers to implement active transportation elements in coordination with new housing development. By pairing sustainable transportation with infill housing, AHSC is an effective way to combat climate change. This program rewards projects with a bold vision for transforming neighborhoods.
Omar Atayee, a principal engineer with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), presented on the Imperial Avenue Bikeway Project, which was funded in part by an AHSC grant. He broke down the elements of this ambitious San Diego project covering more than three miles of a major urban street.
The foundation for the project was SANDAG’s regional bike plan, with Imperial Avenue as a connection on its regional bikeway network. Atayee walked through the multiple funding sources the agency used to secure funding for the project and the partnerships that made the project work. The Imperial Avenue Bikeway provides a real-world example of the types of transformative projects that can be funded through a combination of sources, including AHSC.
Joey Juhasz-Lukomski, a program manager at the Shared Use Mobility Center, a nonprofit that works with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) to implement several sustainable transportation funding programs, including the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) program. CMO Grants allow up to $100,000 for needs assessments to ensure SANDAG was using the funding where it was most needed.
Projects can include up to $1.8 million for capital costs and four years of operations for bikeshare, car share, and other mobility pilot programs.
Juhasz-Lukomski also talked about funding through the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP), also funded through CARB. STEP offers grant funding for things like zero-emissions transit, bike lanes, bikeshare, infrastructure, education, and tree planting. At least one community benefit organization (CBO) or local or tribal government needs to be part of every STEP project.
At the moment, no additional rounds of funding for CMO and STEP have been secured, but the state transportation budget could provide additional rounds if legislators see value in these programs. Juhasz-Lukomski’s slides are below.
The deadline to submit legislation in Sacramento has passed, so we have a preliminary look at CalBike’s legislative agenda. Despite new limits on the number of bills each legislator can submit, there are many bills of interest to people who care about active transportation and safer streets.
Some of the bills we expect to support (or oppose) have been filed but the specific language is still in the development stage, so we’ve put them on our watch list for now. We’ll provide updates as bill provisions become clearer.
Here are the bills CalBike is sponsoring, supporting, or monitoring at the very beginning of the legislative session.
CalBike sponsors bills for better bike infrastructure, e-bike classification
CalBike is sponsoring or co-sponsoring three bills we think will bring significant positive changes to California streets and make our shared spaces safer for vulnerable road users.
Caltrans Quick-Build Pilot (AB 891, Zbur): Quick-build allows public agencies to respond quickly to unsafe road conditions by adding paint, planter boxes, soft-hit bollards, and other inexpensive infrastructure for bicycle and pedestrian safety. This bill would establish the Quick-Build Project Pilot Program within Caltrans, allowing the agency to implement more Complete Streets on state-controlled roadways without a yearslong planning and funding process. Many local governments already use quick-build to test new bikeways and other active transportation infrastructure; this will allow the same safety interventions on the state routes that serve as local main streets or popular bike routes.
Bicycle Highways Bill (AB 954, Bennett): California has a highway system for motor vehicles, so why not an interconnected network of separated bikeways that allow for safe, fast bicycle transportation? This bill would create a pilot program at Caltrans. It’s an excellent step toward making the bike an appealing and convenient transportation option for more Californians.
Illegal E-Motorcycle Classification (SB 455, Blakespear): Much of the concern about e-bikes on California streets is actually about electric motorcycles and mopeds illegally marketed as e-bikes and often sold to underaged riders. Selling e-motorcycles as e-bikes allows sellers to circumvent California regulations about registration and licensing and puts unsuspecting buyers at risk. The language of the bill is still being written, but the author’s intent is to clarify state regulations, remove gray areas, and specify penalties for violations.
CalBike’s active transportation slate
We’re starting the session with five excellent bills in our active transportation slate. Look for more bills to be added to this slate.
School Streets Bill (AB 382, Berman): For now, this bill is a placeholder with provisions to be added. If it’s similar to Berman’s 2024 school zone safety bill, it will clarify and strengthen regulations to keep students safe from traffic violence as they walk into school. We look forward to working with our partners and the sponsor as this bill evolves.
Caltrans Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (AB 1132, Schiavo): Extreme weather events, made more frequent by climate change, impact California’s transportation systems. Highway 1 has repeatedly been shut down by slides in Northern California, as were train tracks in Southern California. Fires in Paradise and Los Angeles showed the vulnerability of our escape routes. This bill requires Caltrans to identify what makes communities resilient to climate-caused transportation disruptions. It’s an excellent first step toward making all California communities more climate resilient.
Remove Bikeway Roadblocks Bill (SB 71, Wiener): Green transportation champion Senator Scott Wiener is building on his past work to make it easier to build transit and active transportation projects. California’s CEQA environmental review law has been used to stall the building of bikeways and the adoption of bike plans. In recognition of the fact that public transit, biking, and walking have positive environmental impacts, this seeks to make a current temporary CEQA exemption permanent.
Sustainable Transportation Permitting (SB 445, Wiener): Climate disasters are accelerating; we must accelerate our responses. One of the best antidotes to climate change is providing no-carbon transportation options. To that end, this bill speeds up the permitting and construction of sustainable transportation projects. It will have the additional benefit of allowing communities to fix dangerous roadways more quickly, thus reducing the heavy toll of traffic violence.
Safe Crossings Save Lives (SB 671, Cervantes): This bill would beef up requirements for walk signals to make them more pedestrian-friendly. One of the most important provisions is a requirement for the state to inventory the status of existing pedestrian signals. This will show which intersections aren’t using the latest technology or programmed for maximum pedestrian safety; it will highlight where funding and maintenance are needed and improve safety at intersections.
Bills we’re watching
There are a number of bills that could get added to CalBike’s support list once their provisions are clearer, and some we might oppose. In addition to the bills listed below, we are watching several bills that we don’t have all the details about. Check our Legislative Watch page for updates as we learn more.
State highway work zone speed safety program (AB 289, Haney): Establishes a speed enforcement system through Caltrans.
E-bike reflector requirement (AB 544, Davies): This bill would require e-bikes to have a rear red reflector or light visible at 500 feet at all times of day.
E-bike clarification (AB 545, Davies): Further clarification of the definition of an e-bike to include fully operable pedals and a motor that can’t exceed 750 watts.
Highway Design Manual: Increase Fire Department authority (AB 612, Rogers): This bill would give local fire departments greater say in active transportation improvements.
Illegal Electric Motorcycles (AB 875, Muratsuchi): The illegal e-motorcycle bill CalBike is sponsoring clarifies the regulations differentiating e-bikes from motorcycles. This bill invites police officers to confiscate e-motorcycles, which could lead to disproportionate enforcement against BIPOC Californians.
The Safe, Sustainable, Traffic-Reducing Transportation Bond Act of 2026 (AB 939, Schultz): This bill would put a $20 billion state bond on the 2026 ballot. The money would be divided among a range of transportation projects, including active transportation and micromobility. We’re looking forward to more details about where the funds would go.
Higher fines for minors not wearing helmets (AB 965, Dixon): This bill is exactly what the name says.
E-bike Disclosure for Parents and Minors (AB 968, Boerner): This bill would add a requirement that e-bike manufacturers and distributors include a warning about risks and responsibilities if a minor operates the bike.
Intelligent Speed Assistance for Dangerous Drivers (AB 981, Gipson): The governor vetoed the bill we cosponsored to add ISA to all new cars in California. This would require people convicted of reckless driving offenses to install the system in their cars.
Caltrans Slower Streets (AB 1014, Rogers): A bill to lower speed limits on state highways.
Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 (AB 1243, Addis): This bill would put a price on damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions and require emitters to pay into a superfund program administered by CalEPA.
Regional housing needs and transportation plans (AB 1275, Elhawary): This bill would move California toward integration of housing and transportation plans to build more housing near transit, jobs, schools, etc.
San Francisco Bay Area Local Revenue Measure (SB 63, Wiener/Arreguin): This is a third try at authorizing legislation to develop a predictable operational revenue source to ensure the future of Bay Area transit providers.
Study for road and safety improvements (SB 78, Seyarto): A Caltrans study to identify high-collision spots and projects to improve safety at those locations.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (SB 220, Allen): Updates rules about membership on the board of directors of LA Metro.
EMotos (SB 586, Jones): Yet another bill targeting the proliferation of two-wheeled electric vehicles, this one creates an eMoto category of off-road vehicles.
Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 (SB 684, Menjivar): The senate counterpart of Assembly Bill 1243 (see above).
We will undoubtedly add, remove, and move bills on this list. CalBike’s Legislative Watch page has the most up-to-date information. Subscribe to CalBike’s newsletter for regular updates on the most crucial bills for active transportation and periodic reassessments of the status of all the bills we’re supporting or watching.
