Bob Shanteau has provided on CABO Forum a review of the recent Caltrans memo in response to questions from Michael Graff. I am copying it here for wider viewing.

On 4/11/2014 2:25 PM, Michael Graff wrote:
What does “in concert with” mean? Does Caltrans accept the entire NACTO guide as if it were a book of standards?

Or does Caltrans treat the NACTO guide as a book of suggestions? Is it a starting point for Caltrans to “develop and adopt”?

Was Caltrans already developing and adopting standards that directly conflict with the NACTO suggestions?

Bob replied –
The way I read it, the Caltrans Director’s memo addresses two issues: (1) Incorporating the NACTO stuff into Caltrans design standards and guidance; and (2) Who approves design exceptions for design features that do not comply with the bicycle-related standards in the HDM for local agency projects?

On the first issue, he wrote:
“Other references relative to urban street and bicycle facility design can also be valuable resources. Publications such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) “Urban Street Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares,” are resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference when making planning and design decisions on the State highway system and local streets and roads. Caltrans believes that such guidance, coupled with thorough documentation of engineering judgments made in the process, can be of assistance to communities, particularly in urban areas, to support the planning and design of safe and convenient facilities that they own and operate. Caltrans is currently analyzing these guides to identify areas of improvement in our own standards and guidance. This will be a focus of the Department over the next year.”

As I understand it, Kevin Herritt and crew have been designated that job with the cooperation of a committee that includes one member from CBAC (rather than CBAC itself, which is a mystery to me, since its makeup would seem to meet the requirement in the statute for Caltrans to cooperate with counties and cities).

This revision is being done in compliance with Section 890.6 of the Streets and Highways Code:
“SHC 890.6 The department, in cooperation with county and city governments, shall establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. The criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the design speed of the facility, minimum widths and clearances, grade, radius of curvature, pavement surface, actuation of automatic traffic control devices, drainage, and general safety. The criteria shall be updated biennially, or more often, as needed.”

In 1975, we were having trouble with local agencies building all sorts of bikeway crap, but were able to get them to agree to the need for uniform statewide standards for bikeway related features. That effort resulted in Section 891(a) of the Streets and Highways Code:

“SHC 891 (a) All city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted shall utilize all minimum safety design criteria and uniform specifications and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices established pursuant to Sections 890.6 and 890.8, except as provided in subdivision (b).”

Notice that Caltrans was supposed to update the bicycle-related portions of the HDM every two years in cooperation with the counties and cities. That effort fell apart in about 1978 when Caltrans disbanded the Bicycle Facilities Committee and people forgot about the updating requirement. Some of us thought that when Caltrans formed the California Bicycle Advisory Committee in 1992, it would be tasked with meeting the requirement for Caltrans to update the HDM in cooperation with the counties and cities. That didn’t start happening, however, until a few years ago when some local agencies wanted to build bikeways that did not conform with the Caltans standards and found that they couldn’t without losing design immunity. Normally, a public agency can grant itself a design exception for a feature that does not comply with standards, and Caltrans can do that for itself for non-standard bicycle related features on a state project but the Streets and Highways Code says nothing about local agencies doing the same. After all, SHC 890.6 was adopted because local agencies were building crap bikeways, so why would we give them a loophole to get around having to comply with the uniform statewide standards for bicycle related features we had just adopted?

In my work on bicycle detection I had observed the California Traffic Control Devices Committee routinely approve requests to experiment with non-compliant traffic control devices, so I suggested that Caltrans do the same with bicycle-related design features. Some folks then successfully lobbied the legislature for a way for Caltrans to approve requests to experiment with non-standard design features, resulting in Section 891(b) of the Streets and Highways Code:

“(b) The department, by June 30, 2013, shall establish procedures to permit exceptions to the requirements of subdivision (a) for purposes of research, experimentation, testing, evaluation, or verification.”

During the last CBAC meeting, though, Kevin Herritt said that Caltrans lawyers had had told him Caltrans could not approve requests to experiment for local agencies. Caltrans lawyers simply couldn’t wrap their head around the fact that 40 years ago the legislature had told Caltrans to develop bicycle-related design standards that are uniform statewide when the same is not true for the rest of the Highway Design Manual. (Even though Caltrans does the same for traffic control devices.) When the local agencies realized that Caltrans was not willing to grant requests to experiment on local projects, they worked to get the authority to grant design exceptions on their projects instead.

That takes us to the second issue in the Director’s memo: Who has the authority to approve a design exception for a feature on a local project that does not comply with the bicycle-related portions of the HDM?

On this issue, the Director wrote:

“For improvements on local systems, the responsible local entities have long been delegated authority to exercise their engineering judgment when utilizing applicable standards, including those for bicycle facilities established by Caltrans pursuant to Streets and Highways Code sections 890.6 and 890.8. This delegation and delegation process is outlined in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Chapter 11, page 11-26. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/…/lam/prog_p/ch11-2012-10-05.pdf.”
…
“Given the flexibility provided to owners by existing standards and guidance, it remains of the utmost importance, as noted above, for the responsible entity (Caltrans or local authority) to document appropriately their engineering decisions for design-immunity purposes. Adequate documentation will ensure the full protection of design immunity provided under law to the responsible entity.”

The problem is that the Caltrans Director cannot unilaterally change state law, so the statement in that first paragraph may or may not be true. It would be best for the legislature to explicitly grant local agencies the authority to grant design exceptions to bicycle-related design standards in the HDM. As the Director points out, it makes sense for local agencies to have the authority to grant design exceptions on their own projects. But can we trust them not to build crap bikeways again? Or would it be better to hold off and and update the bicycle-related design standards instead? That is the struggle we are going through right now.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations strongly supports AB 2707, as amended April 21. By modifying existing limitations on length, AB 2707 would allow public transit buses to carry front racks capable of accommodating three bicycles.
Combining bus and bicycle travel benefits both modes of transport, and there is great demand for this change. Thank you Assembly Member Chau for introducing this bill.

You may be familiar with the Fed Gov’t requirement for states to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Part of the Calif. SHSP is Challenge Area 13, Bike Safety. That group has just updated their “talking points” summary info about bicycling safety. There is a link below to the whole SHSP talking points document, and I provide below just the bicycle portion.

http://www.ots.ca.gov/access/SHSP_Talking_Points.doc

Enjoy.

Challenge Area 13: Improve Bicycle Safety, Last updated: 04/29/14
● Federal, state, and local governments and many businesses recognize the environmental, traffic, economic, and health benefits of bicycling for recreation and transportation as well as every person’s legal rights and responsibilities for bicycling on the roadway. Over the past decade, policymakers and others have been promoting bicycle riding, linking it to clean air, a healthier population, and reduced traffic congestion.

● Recent “Share the Road” campaigns, e.g. Shared Lane Markings/”Sharrows” & “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signs, are educating road users on the concept that in many situations bicyclists may use a full lane.

● With the passage of AB 1371, to go into effect September 2014, California drivers are required generally to stay at least three feet away when passing bicyclists.

● California’s traffic culture has focused primarily on motor vehicles, leading the general public to believe bicycling should not occur on roadways. In April 2013, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) started a new campaign “Zero Tolerance for Drivers Who Disrespect Cyclists” to discourage life-threatening behavior toward cyclists. Former USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood stated, “We need to make sure people driving here have respect for bicyclists. Bicyclists have as much right to the road as they do.”

● There is a widespread misconception that it is up to the bicyclists to stay out of the way of motor vehicles and that bicyclists should ride on sidewalks — sidewalk bicycling is illegal in many cities and can lead to crashes involving motorists or pedestrians.

● With few exceptions, a person bicycling on the road is entitled to the same rights and is subject to many of the same responsibilities as a person using a motor vehicle. Everyone must be aware of their responsibilities and be respectful and tolerant of each other on California roadways.

● California’s favorable climate and increased marketing of bicycling through events, such as the Amgen Tour of California and National Bike Month, have resulted in more recreational riding and bicycle commuting. Ciclovia events (closing city streets to automobiles) encourage families with children and others to have fun bicycling.

● More young adults are choosing bicycles instead of a motor vehicle for more of their transportation needs. Americans between the ages of 16 and 34 appear to be driving less than previous generations due to the high cost of driving and a greater interest in personal fitness and environmental stewardship. (U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Frontier Group)

● Immigrants are twice as likely as US-born Americans to travel by bicycle. (League of American Bicyclists and the Sierra Club) It is essential to reach out by providing bicycling education and advocacy materials that meet the specific needs and cultural understandings of these communities.

● As policies encourage more walking and bicycling, there is a responsibility by all to provide facilities, activities, and educational opportunities to make it as safe as possible. It may be that the more people who use bicycles or walking, the safer the roadway travel environment will be for everyone.

● Bicycle fatalities in California increased 6.9 percent from 116 in 2011 to 124 in 2012 (FARS, 2014).

● Bicycle severe injuries in California increased 12.2 percent from 874 in 2010 to 981 in 2011 (SWITRS).

● In California in 2011, the statewide percentage of bicyclist fatalities was 4.1 percent of all fatalities, which is nearly twice the national average of 2.1 percent (FARS, 2013).

● Between 2009 and 2011 in California, fatalities involving bicycles accounted for 4.1 percent of fatalities overall and serious injuries involving bicycles accounted for 8.6 percent of severe injuries overall. This suggests that bicyclists are over-represented in fatal and injury crashes relative to their 1.1 percent share of trips in the State, (US Census American Community Survey). Furthermore, fatal and severe injuries involving bicycle were 1.4 times severe than fatal and severe injuries overall.

● Between 2009 and 2011, collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles are more likely to occur on local roadways than the State Highway System. Specifically, 84.9 percent of fatalities involving bicycles and 89.4 percent of severe injuries involving bicycles occurred on a local road compared to 57.2 percent of fatalities overall and 64.3 percent of severe injuries overall.

● Over half of all bicycle-related injury collisions between 2009 and 2011 occurred in four counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Santa Clara.

● There is a documented relationship between motor vehicle speeds and bicyclist collision severity. A report titled, “Why We Are Stuck at High Speed and What Are We Going To Do About It,” by Sara Wright and Scott Bricker (February 2012), states that “as driving speed increases, so does the likelihood of getting into a crash, and the likelihood of injury or death for the people involved in the crash.”

● Bicycling is an increasingly important mode share in our transportation system. However, many people do not bicycle due to concerns about safety. Efforts to enhance infrastructure should occur in tandem with education and enforcement efforts.

● Road use should be safe for everyone.

The FHWA solicited comments regarding National Performance Management Measures. Here are our comments.

The following are comments from the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (cabobike.org) regarding the DOT/FHWA Federal Register, 23 CFR Part 490, National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety Improvement Program. Docket Number FHWA-2013-0020

1. The codes of all states should adopt the provisions in the Uniform Vehicle Code concerning bicycles, particularly the provisions defining bicycles as vehicles and bicyclists as drivers of vehicles (or at least as having the same rights and duties of drivers of vehicles as far as the rules of the road are concerned), as recommended by the 1975 report of the NCUTLO Panel on Bicycle Laws.

2. The Federal government and the codes of all states should recognize shared use paths as highways.

3. The right of bicyclists to use all public streets and highways, exclusive of certain motorways for which non-motorized alternates exist, should be confirmed.

4. Mileposts should be placed on shared use paths.

5. Bicycle mode share, bicycle counts and bicycle-miles traveled on both highways and shared use paths should be included in the Highway Performance Monitoring System.

6. Bicycle collisions on highways and shared use paths should be included in the NHTSA and FHWA traffic safety state motor vehicle crash databases.

7. Collisions and casualties involving bicyclists should include walkways and shared use paths.

8. Traffic collision report forms need to include:
a. Bicycles as a vehicle type;
b. Check boxes for location of bicycle just before impact: center of traffic lane, right-
hand edge of traffic lane, shoulder, bike lane, crosswalk, walkway and shared use path;
c. Entry for width of traffic lane, bike lane, shoulder, walkway or shared use path;
d. Entry for whether the bicycle was carrying a passenger; and
e. Milepost on highway or shared use path.

9. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances should be resurrected with partial or full funding from USDOT.

Finally, bicycle traffic safety needs to be treated as seriously as motor vehicle safety.

Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Jim Baross
CABO President

There has been/should be some concern and a lot of hype about AB 1193, the bill that some are miss-stating would free up cities from State standards for bikeways. Here’s what we at CABO have communicated to the bill’s author.

We appreciate interest and efforts of the Office of Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting to provide for more and safer bicycling. Thank you!

Although supportive of such efforts – CABO folks are very concerned that;
1) adequate study and review occurs so that resulting designs do not introduce hazards. Including the Caltran’s Calif. Bicycling Advisory Committee in design proposal review would be a good step in that process.
2) introduction of Class IV should not result in prohibition of bicycling on general traffic lanes… Not only do we oppose/fear introduction of mandatory side-path/Class IV use laws, but we fear increased harassment from motorists (and some law enforcement personnel) for bicyclists lawfully using general travel lanes where a separated facility exists.

Minimally we request consideration to –
1) Replace “protected bike lanes” in “Class IV bikeways, also known as “cycletracks” or “protected bike lanes,” with something else such as “Side-paths” or “separated Bikeways” or “segregated Bikeways”. The law would then read “… Class IV bikeways, also known as “Cycletracks” or “Side-paths” or “Separated Bikeways”…

2) Add legislative intent language such as “Class IV Bikeways are intended to provide additional places for people to choose to use a bicycle. Class IV Bikeways are not intended to reduce the utility of or prohibit bicycling on public roadways.”

3) We might try to add something to clear up the “trail immunity”/Prokop case issue… such as we are trying with the bike benefiting tax SB 1183 below.
Include an amendment to Government Code 831.4, below, as shown in red italic or (b) include an amendment the Streets and Highways Code §890.4(a): “A Class I and Class IV bikeways are not trails for purposes of Government Code Section 831.4.”

To change Gov’t Code as follows:
Section 831.4 – A public entity, public employee, or a grantor of a public easement to a public entity for any of the following purposes, is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of:
(a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas and which is not a (1) city street or highway or (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways.
(b) Any trail used for the above purposes that is not a bikeway as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(c) Any paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property, so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk which constitutes a hazard to health or safety. Warnings required by this subdivision shall only be required where pathways are paved, and such requirement shall not be construed to be a standard of care for any unpaved pathways or roads.

So, some more detail concerns (the devil is in the details?) about AB 1193 from CABO director discussions…

Existing Streets and Highway Code §890.6 requires Caltrans, “in cooperation with county and city governments,” to “establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways.” §890.8 requires Caltrans alone to “establish uniform specifications and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices to designate bikeways, regulate traffic, improve safety and convenience for bicyclists, and alert pedestrians and motorists of the presence of bicyclists on bikeways.”

If a new definition for a Class IV bikeway is added to §890.4, these provisions would automatically apply to it. The new subdivision §891(c), requiring that Caltrans “in cooperation with local agencies, shall establish minimum safety design criteria for Class IV bikeways, as designated in Section 890.4,” may therefore be redundant. Furthermore, it isn’t entirely consistent with existing law:
It specifies “local agencies,” which could be construed as either a broader or narrower scope than “county and city governments” in §890.6.
It refers only to minimum safety and design criteria, without mentioning planning and construction, as in §890.6.
It omits the traffic control device provisions of §890.8.
It doesn’t logically fit as a subdivision of §891, which deals with compliance with standards, not their establishment.
The compliance subdivision §891(a) refers to standards established by §§890.6 and 890.8, not by §891(c).
The bill should be rewritten to reconcile these inconsistencies.

Defining Class IV bikeways in §890.4 before any standards have been established for them creates an ambiguity. Are they not to be constructed until standards have been established? Or may they be constructed freely, because there are as yet no standards that need to be complied with?

Currently, “cycletracks” would be subject to the design standards of Class I bike paths or Class II bike lanes. But if they can be categorized in a new class of their own, it could be claimed that Class I and Class II standards no longer apply.

It might be better to defer adding this definition to the code until the standards for it have been developed.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations strongly supports AB 2707, as amended April 21. By modifying existing limitations on length, AB 2707 would allow public transit buses to carry front racks capable of accommodating three bicycles.
Combining bus and bicycle travel benefits both modes of transport, and there is great demand for this change.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations respectfully continues to oppose SB 1183. The April 21 amendments, replacing a sales tax on bicycles with a surcharge on motor vehicle registration, may help reduce the administrative issues associated with collection. But we still have serious concerns with the bill’s restriction of the revenue for “improvements to paved and natural surface trails, including the rehabilitation, restoration, and expansion of existing trails, the development of new trails, and the maintenance and upkeep of local and regional trail systems and networks.”
Although the source of funding no longer involves a bicycle tax, and the bill is no longer titled the “Local Bike Infrastructure Enhancement line 28 Act of 2014,” Legislative Counsel’s digest still describes it as “Vehicle registration fees: surcharge for bicycle infrastructure.” To the extent that park districts may want to improve and maintain unpaved trails, including those for mountain bikes, this is fine. But cities and counties, which would also be authorized to impose the surcharge (subject to two-thirds voter approval), might have less need for unpaved park trails and greater need for paved bicycle infrastructure. To the extent that the surcharge is perceived as a source of bicycle funding, restricting it to “trails” is inappropriate.
The term “trail” has no meaning in the Streets and Highways Code or design standards as a bicycle facility. To the extent that it’s interpreted as an off-road facility (properly known as a “bike path”), this source of funding would encourage local agencies to focus on paths regardless of their suitability, when other types of bicycle improvements might be safer and more efficient. If the funding is to be used for bicycles, it would be better to allow local discretion similar to project eligibility under the Active Transportation Program, which can be found in Streets and Highways Code §2382(e) and could be incorporated by reference.
There is an additional obstacle, in that several courts have held that all paved bike paths are considered recreational trails subject to comprehensive local immunity from liability, regardless of other statutes whose intent was to require that bike path adhere to specified design standards. As a result, bicyclists who have been injured by noncompliant or poorly maintained facilities cannot recover damages, and agencies have no legal incentive to adhere to established engineering standards. These injustices could be remedied simply by amending Government Code §831.4(b) to read “(b) Any trail used for the above purposes that is not a bikeway as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.” Alternatively, the following sentence could be added to Streets and Highways Code §890.4(a): “A Class I bikeway is not a trail for purposes of Government Code Section 831.4.”
Amendments such as the ones we suggest would make us much more favorably disposed toward the bill.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations, the association of California’s bicycle clubs, respectfully continues to oppose AB 2173. The April 22 amendment to increase the gross brake horsepower of a gas-powered motorized bicycle (or moped) defined in Vehicle Code §406(a) from 2 to 4 is only incidental to the bill’s primary purpose. The expected amendment to delete Section 2, which would currently permit low-speed electric bicycles on all bicycle paths and equestrian, hiking, or recreational trails, unless prohibited by local ordinance, would, however, remove one of our major concerns.
Electric bikes tend to attract an older demographic who are looking for recreation or local transportation, and a modicum of exercise, without excessive physical effort. They can help to expand the constituency for bicycle travel, and we would like to encourage their use. But even the definition that would remain in AB 2173 after the amendments raises a number of questions.
Under existing law, the type of motorized bicycle defined in §406(b) must have a power output of 1,000 watts or less, and must not be able to propel the bicycle faster than 20 mph on “ground level,” either by itself or with human-powered assistance. §24016 specifies that operators must be 16 years of age or older, must wear a helmet, and are exempt from insurance, driver license, and license plate requirements. That section also includes additional equipment requirements.
AB 2173 renames this device a “low-speed electric bicycle.” The power output is reduced from 1,000 watts to 750 watts (1 HP). The motor must now be incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour “on a paved level surface, when powered solely by a motor when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds.” As in current law, the motor must be incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the device faster than 20 miles per hour. The weight would be limited to 80 pounds.
We would like to understand why this is the best definition. Federal law (23 U.S.C. §217(j)(2)) defines “electric bicycle” as “any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour”—although that’s only for purposes of prohibiting them from federal-aid trails and pedestrian walkways, except where state or local regulations permit. Are different definitions in use in other jurisdictions? Consistency would be desirable.
Can a top speed of 20 mph “when powered solely by a motor when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds” be verified empirically, either by the manufacturer or by a police officer? It seems unnecessarily complicated. What about aftermarket devices—how do they fit in?
Finally, the new definition replaces the old one., Where does this leave electric motorized bicycles that meet the old definition, but not the new low-speed one? (I understand that such devices do exist.) Do they now become the first type of moped, and how does this change the age, helmet, insurance, driver license, license plate, and equipment requirements currently applicable to them under §24016 (which the bill would transfer to the newly defined low-speed electric bicycle)? Or would they legally be some other type of device?
We would be glad to continue working on these questions, but enacting even the definitional changes prematurely could make operational regulations harder to agree on later on.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations, the association of California’s bicycle clubs, respectfully opposes AB 2054, as amended February 20. While we endorse the use of alternative transportation such as electric skateboards, the ideas here are not fully worked out.
As introduced, the bill expressed the Legislature’s intent to define “electric motorized skateboard.” But that has not been done (though the term “electric” has expanded to “electrically”). The bill should probably begin with a definition of “skateboard,” as part of the Vehicle Code’s Definitions division—perhaps something along the lines of “a device for riding upon while standing, consisting of a short piece of wood, plastic, or metal mounted on roller-skate wheels, and having no seat or handlebars” (possibly specifying the size, number, or arrangement of the wheels). “Electric motorized skateboard” could then be a type of skateboard that has the properties described on p. 3 of the bill. The insurance disclaimer also belongs logically with this definition (as with the current definitions of “motorized bicycle” and “motorized scooter” in Vehicle Code §§406 and 407.5, and the proposed definition in AB 2173 (Bradford) of “low-speed electric bicycle”). It doesn’t fit under the Rules of the Road division.
But these are technicalities. The substance of the bill leaves many questions unanswered. How can electric motorized skateboards be a practical means of transportation if they’re permitted in bike lanes, but not on roadways? What does the rider do when the bike lane ends (or before it begins), or to turn onto a street without bike lanes? What are the operating characteristics of electric motorized skateboards: For instance, can they maneuver and stop quickly enough for street use? What are the consequences of shared use with pedestrians and equestrians on hiking and recreational trails?
What about lighting requirements at night? Are operators subject to vehicle registration, operator licensing, or helmet requirements? For comparison, see §24016 for the corresponding regulations for electric bicycles.
We would like to see these issues addressed so we can evaluate electrically motorized skateboards on their merits.