HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2000, 2 - SENATE BILL 1629: GOOD ROADS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT council '
July 18,2000
j acEnaa aEpout
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner'U>
SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 1629: GOOD ROADS FOR THE 21'
CENTURY ACT
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution supporting the passage of SB1629 as
drafted(see Attachment F)
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution supporting the passage of SB 1629 if it is
amended to: exclude local and collector residential streets
(roads within residential districts forecast to cant' 3,000
vehicles per day or less); enable the phasing of street
improvements; and define important terms that are used to
determine the bill's application, and forward it to the City's
State legislators(see Attachment E).
REPORT IN BRIEF
The State legislature is considering a bill — SB 1629 — that would require bicyclists and pedestrians to be
accommodated on new roads built after January 1, 2003. The City's Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC)
has recommended that the Council support this legislation. In contrast,City staff believes that bikeways on
low-volume residential local and collector streets are not necessary and could raise other neighborhood
traffic management and vehicle parking issues, and therefore recommends that the Council support SB 1629
if it is amended to exclude local and collector residential streets. Staff further recommends that the bill be
amended to address various administrative issues.
DISCUSSION
A. Background: At its June 15, 2000 meeting the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) reviewed
Senate Bill 1629 (Attachment Q. This issue was brought to the committee by one of its members,
Bruce Collier. After a brief discussion, the committee unanimously recommended that the City
Council support SB 1629 and forward a recommendation of support to State Legislators representing
the San Luis Obispo area. A pertinent excerpt from the BAC minutes is attached(Attachment D).
SB 1629, entitled the "Good Roads for the 21' Century Act," would establish design standards for
new roads and modifications to existing roads that ensure bicycle and pedestrian access. Key
elements of the bill include the following provisions:
1. All new streets (except those where construction began prior to January 1, 2003 or when a
construction contract has been awarded before that date) must accommodate bicyclists and
pedestrians.
2-1
Council Agenda Report: SBI 629—Good Roads for the 219 Century Act
Page 2
2. The resurfacing,restoration,or rehabilitation of existing streets must not result in a decrease to the
existing level of pedestrian and bicycle access and safety features along and across those streets.
3. On new streets,bicyclists must be accommodated by bike lanes or a shared roadway. A shared
roadway is described as a roadway that includes shoulders.
4. Agencies may conduct a public hearing and approve exemptions to the provisions of SB 1629 if
any one of a list of five exemption findings can be made.
B. Staff Analysis: The primary effect of this legislation in San Luis Obispo would be on the
construction of new streets within growth areas identified by the General Plan or on the
reconstruction of existing streets when additional vehicle lanes are proposed The following
evaluation is based on the version of SB 1629 as amended on June 15,2000.
1. Sidewalk Requirements: SB 1629 would require sidewalks to be installed along both sides of
new streets. This requirement is consistent with standard City practice for new streets within both
residential and commercial areas. Therefore SB 1629 should have limited effect. However,there are
times when the City has allowed streets to be partially constructed(curbs, gutters and sidewalks on
one side, plus paving a half street plus a travel lane) and has deferred the installation of frontage
facilities on one side of the street until the adjoining property is developed.
SB 1629 does not specifically address this situation. However,it does provide an"exception process"
(Paragraph H.2.) that requires a public hearing to be held to consider exception requests. SB 1629
presents five (5) criteria that local agencies would use to grant exceptions. Depending on the
particular circumstances,the situation described above may qualify for an exception under Criterion
2 (alternative route available),or Criterion 4 (sparse population). Thus, if passed in its current form,
SB 1629 would require a public hearing for each partial road widening project.
2. Bikeway Requirements. Under provisions of the City's adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan
(1993),only street corridors designated by Plan include bike lanes, parallel bike paths, or paved
shoulders. SB 1629 will significantly effect the design of new local and collector roadways in growth
areas and possibly require more land and street right-of-way to comply with its provisions.
The City's current policy is to provide bicycle access consistent with the adopted Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The plan stipulates that bike lanes be provided on all arterial streets since they
are the primary bicycle commuter routes and that bike paths separated from streets be provided to
serve the needs of recreational bicyclists and some commuters. Conversely, on low-volume local
and collector streets, bicyclists are supposed to share the road with motor vehicles. SB 1629
stipulates that either bike lanes or a shared roadway (defined by the bill as a roadway with shoulders,
a standard most applicable to county areas)would also be required on these types of new streets.
2-2
Council Agenda Report: SS1629—Good Roads for the 21"Century Act
Page 3
Staff supports the inclusion of.bikeways on all streets within new commercial and industrial areas
and on all new arterial roads. However, staff cannot support their inclusion on local and collector
residential streets unless the City's design of these streets is substantially modified to incorporate
traffic calming facilities and alternative arrangements for guest parking. Since the speed of traffic in
residential areas can be affected by the width of the roadway, providing wider roadways to
accommodate bicyclists on low volume residential streets appears contrary to the City's
Neighborhood Traffic Management(NTM policies that establish 25 mph as the maximum desirable
speed within residential areas. Also, given the low traffic volumes and speeds on these streets,
potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists should be minimal.
It was suggested by BAC Member Collier at the June 15' meeting that if the City was concerned
about roadway widths in residential areas,then curb parking could be deferred and a street's curb-to-
curb dimension could be reduced. This strategy would be a significant departure from past practice
but could be prescribed by requisite specific plans for the Margarita and Orcutt residential expansion
areas. However,while the local residential roadways could be narrowed from 36-40 feet to about 26-
28 feet(9-10 foot travel lanes with minimal 4 foot shoulders)if curb parking is not provided,a wider
"friction free" pathway would be created which might encourage motorists to drive faster.
Additionally,past experience indicates that city residents want and expect on-street parking.
S131629's exception process can be employed via a public hearing. Criteria 1 (contrary to public
safety), Criteria 3 (costs disproportionate to projected need or use) or Criteria 4 (sparse population
indicate absence of need) might be applied to new local residential streets, depending on the
particular physical setting. The exception process could be employed by the City Council when it
adopts requisite specific plans or includes more isolated street reconstruction projects within its
Financial Plan.
Considering the competing design objectives for residential local and collector streets(none of which
appears to be acknowledged by the bill's text), staff recommends that the Council support the
exclusion of these types of streets from the scope of SB 1629. This exclusion is part of the CAO
Recommendation which defines residential streets as roads within residential districts that are
forecast to carry 3,000 vehicles per day or less. This vehicle volume threshold (3,000 vpd) is
consistent with the Circulation Element's definition of"Residential Collector"streets.
Staff notes that of the 120+miles of streets within San Luis Obispo,a sizable proportion of these are
roads within residential districts. Therefore,excluding these streets from the scope of SB 1629 would
significantly reduce the bill's potential fiscal impacts(primarily maintenance impacts).
3. Public Hearings and Current City Plans and Ordinances. SB 1629 requires the City to hold a
public hearing to grant exceptions to the bill's provisions. This process could be integrated with the
City's subdivision and specific planning process. However,depending on the acceptance or rejection
of an exception request(examples noted above),significant revisions to the design of
2-3
Council Agenda Report: SB1629—Good Roads for the 21"Century Act
Page 4
subdivisions or specific plans could be required. In a limited number of cases, isolated street
reconstruction projects,such as removing parking to create turn lanes, may require a public hearing
because vehicle lanes are being added.
Passage of SB 1629 raises the issue of consistency between it and the City's Subdivision Regulations
and standards contained within the Bicycle Transportation Plan, General Plan Circulation Element,
and adopted or drafted Specific Plans. If passed,it is likely that some amendments would be needed
to inform the public about modified street standards; or as a minimum, these documents should
incorporate or reference SB1629's "exception process." Since the bill does not apply to streets
where construction is begun before January 1, 2003, there should be adequate time to modify City
plans and standards,as appropriate, to comply with the new law. The precise scope of any requisite
modifications is unknown at this time.
4. Administrative Issues. It is unknown at this time whether the Commission on State Mandates
will determine that the bill contains costs mandated by the State for which reimbursement would be
made pursuant to statutory provisions. Staff believes that the City should support this bill contingent
upon the Commission makes this finding,which will enable reimbursement for mandated costs.
The wording of SB1629 is vague in the description of activities that are exempt from its provisions.
A definitions section needs to be included that clearly describes the following terms: highway;
vehicle lanes; reconstruction,rehabilitation;restoration; and replacement(see paragraph (2) on last
page of attached bill).
Finally, as previously discussed in Paragraph B.1 above, the bill should be amended to include
provisions that enable the phased construction of improvements within street corridors.
5.Feedback From Other Organizations.
(a) The first section of Attachment A presents the Legislative Counsel's Digest. The digest outlines
the legal and fiscal impact of the bill on the state concerning reimbursement to local agencies
from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
(b) Cabobike, a bicycle advocacy organization,supports the passage of SB 1629(see Attachment E).
Cabobike maintains that SB1629 is similar to successful legislation in Oregon that has been in
effect since 1971 and with other similar laws affecting only state highways in Massachusetts and
Hawaii. The central argument in favor of the bill is that since bicycles and pedestrians have the
right to travel on almost all local roads and state highways, standards should be created that
ensure that these modes be accommodated safely and comfortably.
Staff Response: In staff's view, while bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of
motorists and can travel on all roads (except freeways),the design of roads should respond to
their intended use. On busy streets used for employment access and shopping, safe access for
bicyclists should be provided by reserving area for their passage. However, on lower volume
streets where conflicts with vehicles are minimal,bicyclists can safely share the road with
2-4
Council Agenda Report: SB1629—Good Roads for the 21°Century Act
Page 5
motorists. As an extreme example, SB 1629 would require bicycle lanes on a cul-de-sac that
serves very few homes. Clearly common sense should prevail,and while the bill proposes to use
the public hearing process to establish that common sense,it would be far better to have a well
written bill that makes common sense to begin with.
(c) The League of California Cities opposes the passage of S131629. No specific legislative
discussion paper has been published to date. The League's liaison person,Natasha Fooman,has
provided the following comment.(from e-mail dated 6-20-00):
The League of California Cities has historically been a strong advocate of pedestrian and
bicyclist rights.... as a matter a fact the League last year supported AB 1475. AB 1475 as
you know, designated a portion of federal transportation safetyfunding apportioned to the
state under the federal Hazard Elimination/Safety (HES) program to be used by local
governments to improve school area safety by installing new crosswalks, building bicycle
paths and lanes, constructing sidewalks where none exist, and implementing traffic
calming programs in neighborhoods around schools.
It is very important to note, that the League acknowledges that bicycle transportation and
pedestrian safety is important throughout the state. Unfortunately, SB 1629 and SB 1772
would divert transportation funds that we currently need to maintain our street and road
systems. This comes at a time when there is an $11 billion in unmet maintenance needs
that have been identified on our current city streets and county roads system. Funds
necessary for maintaining the street and road systems is a priority at the League and
therefore, we must oppose legislation that takes money away from the unmet needs.
Staff Response: In staff s view,the content of SB 1629 does not mandate state funding of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. However,another piece of legislation that is winding its way through the
state legislative process — SB 1772 — would mandate a significant increase in state funding for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities from$1,000,000ep r year in the current fiscal year(escalating to$3
million/year by 2003) to $1,000,000 per month. Staff believes that the League's concern for
diverting funds away from street maintenance most directly applies to SB 1772 and less directly to
SB 1629(see fiscal impact section below).
Attachment F provides an analysis for the Assembly Committee on Transportation. Page 6 and 7
of this material identifies the groups that support or oppose this legislation as of June 23,2000.
The Legislature and its various cornmittees are actively debating this legislation and a variety of
amendments have already been made to the bill. Staff will provide the latest status of the bill at the
July 18`h Council Meeting. Any new information concerning the text of the bill will be provided at
that time.
2-5
Council Agenda Report: SBI 629—Good Roads for the 21°Century Act
Page 6
FISCAL DIFACTS
To the extent that the implementation of SB 1629 will increase the width of paved roads to accommodate
bikeways, the City would incur additional maintenance and in some limited instances, capital costs. The
amount of any cost increases is unknown. According to the Legislative Counsel's evaluation,passage of
SB 1629 would impose a"state-mandated local program." SB 1629 would provide that if the Commission on
State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the State, reimbursement for those costs
shall be made pursuant to statutory provisions. However,given the State's current attitude toward funding
for cities and counties,even a positive ruling by the Commission would probably be ignored.
It is unknown as of this time whether any capital or maintenance costs could be recovered by the City,but
the likelihood of any recovery is small.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the BAC's and CAD's Recommendations,the City Council may:
A. Support SB 1629 subject to amendments[Council to specify]other than the one described within the
CAD's Recommendation.
B. Vote to Oppose SB1629.
C. Continue discussion and request that staff provide additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Text of SB 1629(June 15,2000 Edition)
Attachment B: Bicycle Advisory Committee Minute Excerpt(June 15,2000)
Attachment C: Position Paper produced by CoboBike.
Attachment D: Synopsis of Assembly Committee on Transportation Analysis
Attachment E: Resolution supporting SB 1629 with revisions(CAO's recommendation)
Attachment F: Resolution supporting SB 1629 as drafted(BAC's recommendation)
1:\Everyone\CouncilA;endaReports\SB 1629BikeCommitteeRccommendation(1)
2-6
SB 1629 Senate Bill-AMENDED http://info.sen.ca.gov/pu' '/se...629_bill_20000615_amended_asm.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 1629 AMENDED
BILL TEXT Attachment A
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 15, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 9, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 2, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 24, 2000
INTRODUCED BY Senator Sher
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
An act to add Section 894.5 to the Streets and Highways Code,
relating to highways.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1629, as amended, Sher. Highways: pedestrian and bicycle
access.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to
publish a statewide map illustrating state highway spi}iegi
as avai}able ,
for the use of bicycles, and, where bicycles are p it
using a state highway, illustrating alternative routes;'.im1'f$Ie"t8
the bicyclist. Existing law requires the department to establish
design and safety criteria for bicycle roadways. Existing law
authorizes a local authority to establish bikeways, and creates the
Bicycle Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund to
provide funds for bicycle transportation.
This bill would require bicycle and pedestrian access to be
included on all highways and toll bridges
constructed, as defined, after a specified date unless exceptions are
found by the responsible agency after a public hearing, as
prescribed. The bill would also make legislative findings and
declarations.
To the extent that this bill would require local entities to
construct pedestrian and bicycle paths in conjunction .with
construction of highways, it would impose a state-mandated local
program.
These provisions would become operative on January I, 2002.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1, 000, 000 statewide
and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1, 000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 894.5 is added to the Streets and Highways
Code, to read:
894.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(1) The use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation
is a common and fundamental right, and that all persons have an equal
right to use these thoroughfares for travel by appropriate means,
and with due regard to the rights of others.
(2) It is the policy of this state to provide an integrated and
balanced transportation system for the use of all persons, including 2-7
1 of 3 6/19/00 4:09 PN
SB 1629 Senate Bill-AMENDED http://info.sen.ca.gov/pu' 'se...629_bill_20000615_amended_asm.html
the young, the elderly, the disadvantaged, and those with
disabilities.
(3) Enabling the public to use a variety of travel modes,
including walking and bicycling, contributes to the public health,
facilitates access to schools, jobs, shopping, recreation, and other
daily needs, and creates a sense of local community identity and
pride.
(4) Making streets and roads more usable by pedestrians and
bicyclists reduces traffic congestion on those streets and roads.
(5) In order to maximize these benefits, the design of the
highways of California should address the needs of nonmotorized, as
well as motorized transportation.
(b) (1) This section shall be known as, and may
be cited as the Good Roads for the 21st Century
Act.
(2) This section does not apply to either of the following:
(A) A highway for which the final design has been approved by the
department or by the appropriate local authority, if the department
or local authority begins work or awards a contract for work on or
before January 1, 2003.
(B) A toll bridge project authorized pursuant to Sections 30913
and 30914, as authorized by those sections in their form as added by
Section 2 of Chapter 406 of the Statutes of 1988.
(c) Every highway, other than a freeway, constructed by the
department or local authority ,
shall include sidewalks, paths, walkways, or equivalent
facilities on both sides of the highway for use -by
p+edestriaa:xs.
apgrepLc4ate leeal--aautherity, if elle de
begins-eeest L-eetier9flehe highway-ex-er be€gra-3a -daL-5 2993-
,_\ a highway eensSt Lsaete by the L_p_--tfaent er 1 neoe11 �..
e..
._. _.--1 _ems....-.1 --..e-_ee a-� _.1 ._...- �-t..-�-...-._- -_ _--.�� �-......��..1
eemmeee€ng ea eL- a€teL, aan-uax=5,1, 2902, shall ineludle a--effmed `=--
r_- L: _l 1_ _ ..1
(d) (I) Sawept as previded in paL-agraph R) , the
(d) (1) Every highway, other than a freeway, constructed by the
department or local authority shall include accommodations for
bicycle travel.
(2) The accommodation shall be by shared roadway or by bike
lane as described in subdivision (b) of Section 890.4. For purposes
of this section, a shared roadway includes a shoulder.
sheulder ei- bikepath, as deseribed is a bdi*isi 'exec. See£sax
89 A
�t
)
(3) All facilities constructed to accommodate bicyclists
under this section shall conform to the minimum safety design
criteria and uniform standards established by the department pursuant
to Sections 890.6 and 890.8.
�_. --_1 ..._i..__..a..__ -e a ..e'....._J by ...... .....r._r........... ..i any e....re
aut herit y peEfevmed en eL- a€teEganuarry !;2GG2, shall, atanr�ri
_____ntail- he e---elle-_ leve- of pedestrian and bj:e ell ._....ess and-
safety fe takes along and ars_sae the higl":_i. K'X el
(q) Every
(e) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) , every new toll bridge and every toll bridge
that is substantially reconstructed or that !69- C606%nTund.%,
modified to increase its _e.__-_e e___yinq eapae__1 -----------------------
the
�the number of vehicle lanes shall provide a sidewalk or
path for use by pedestrians, and a shoulder, bike lane, or bike path
for use by bicyclists.
(h) 6tbdivisieas (b) £e (f) , reelusive, denet agply i•€ tzie
r-_-e-epee
(f) Subdivisions (c) and (d) and paragraph (3) of subdivision (g)
do not apply if the responsible agency finds, after conducting
a public hearing, any of the following:
(1) Providing the pedestrian or bicycle access is contrary to
public safety.
(2) An alternative route exists that is equally safe and 2-8
2 of 3 6/19/00 4:09 PM
SB 1629 Senate Bill-AMENDED http://info.sen.ca.gov/pv' I/se...629_bill_20000615_amended_asm.html
convenient in terms of travel time and effort, or an alternative
route meeting these criteria will be provided as part of the
construction project.
(3) The cost of the facilities would be disproportionate to
projected need or use.
(4) Sparse population or other factors indicate an absence of any
need.
(5) Significant adverse environmental effects would result from
inclusion of the facilities.
- (1)
(g) (1) For purposes of this section, "construction" means
any of the following:
(A) New construction.
(B) Reconstruction.
(C) Replacement.
(D) Modification to increase iaelty
the number of vehicle lanes, except in the vicinity of toll
booths .
(2) For the purposes of this section, "construction" does not
include any of the following provided that the number of vehicle
lanes is not increased, except in the vicinity of toll booths
(A) Resurfacing. �GcOI wS
(B) Restoration. p�-��W I nes
(C) Rehabilitation.
(D) Toll bridge deck replacement.
(E) Toll bridge seismic retrofit.
(F) Installation of, or improvements to, any of the
following:
(i) Planting.
(ii) Illumination.
(iii) Traffic control devices.
(H)
(iv) Toll booths or restriping in the vicinity of toll booths.
(G) Maintenance.
(Y ) 1- =elQeneal imprevement=s that de net se highway --
eapael
(H eOther incidental alterations.
(3) Any work described in paragraph (2) performed on a highway or
toll bridge by the department or local authority shall not result in
a decrease to the existing level of pedestrian and bicycle access and
safety features along and across the highway or toll bridge.
(h) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2002.
SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and
school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1, 000, 000) ,
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
2-9
3 of 3 6/19/00 4:09 PM
Attachment 0
Minute Excerpt:Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting(Draft Minutes:June 15,2000)
5. REVIEW OF SB 1629—GOOD ROADS FOR THE 21s`CENTURY:
Mr. Collier presented a report on SB 1629 and urged support of the bill.
After brief questioning,the floor was opened for public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments made.
4N
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Mr. Sanville expressed concern about how this bill would apply to local residential streets and
recommend further staff review.
Mr. Collier felt bicycles and autos should be accommodated equally.
Mr. Jaster supported the overall concept of the bill.
Mr. Collier moved to recommend that the City Council support SB 1629. Mr. Jaster seconded the
motion.
AYES: Committee Members Collier,Jaster,Smith, Johnson,and Lee
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Mr. Conner
The motion carried 6-0.
2-10
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.ora/faq.htm
Attachment L
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is SB 1629 called"Good Roads For the Twenty-First Century)
♦ Isn't this a radical and impractical idea'
J Does this mean that ever• road will have bike lanes <utd side!4valks?
4 What about freeways and toll bridscs?
J How much will all this cost?
J NWhat does Federal Iaw sav°?
Why is SB 1629 called "Good Roads for the Twenty-First Century"?
SB 1629 is named for the original Good Roads Movement, sponsored by the League of American
Wheelmen (now the League of American Bicyclists) at the end of the nineteenth century. Bicycles then
were a new and popular means of transportation that for the first time gave mobility to the masses, and
automobiles had not yet come into use. This movement was largely responsible for the cryti. yf the
1 of 8 5/5/00 1:08 PM
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.org/faq.htm
paved road system in the United States.
Back to to
Isn't this a radical and impractical idea?
It's already been tried, and it works. SB 1629 is modeled on an Oregon law(ORS +66.514)that has been
in effect since 1971, but it provides significantly greater flexibility to local and state agencies. Oregon
law nominally requires bikeways (usually in the form of designated bicycle lanes) for bicyclists(though
it is interpreted more broadly). This proposal expressly allows a wide curb lane or shoulder instead, in
order to make sharing the road safer and more comfortable for everyone.
Oregon also requires cities and counties to spend one percent of their state highway funding on footpaths
and bikeways. This proposal imposes no funding restrictions.
\Massachusetts and HaN-%aii have similar laws, but they apply only to state highways.
Under California vehicle law, pedestrians and bicyclists already have the right to travel on almost all
local roads and state highways (other than freeways and toll bridges). In addition, over a thousand miles
of California freeway shoulders are open to bicycles, mostly in rural areas where there is no good
alternative.
Nothing,however, requires roads to be designed in a way that accommodates these lawful users safely
and comfortably. Residential and office subdivisions—even commercial subdivisions—cytir�l�e to be
-1�
2 of 8 515100 1:08 PM
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.orgtfaq.htm
built without sidewalks,or with sidewalks on only one side. The only way to visit your neighbor, or to
get from one building to another, is to walk in the street(or to drive). A high school student in Santa
Rosa was recently hit and killed by a car while walking home on a road without sidewalks. A
transportation system that forces people to drive for every short trip is especially inhospitable to the
young, the elderly, the disadvantaged, and those with disabilities, but it affects the sense of livability and
community for everyone.
For bicyclists, the most common problem is roads that are built or restriped with an outside lane too
narrow to share side-by-side with automobile traffic. Although vehicle law permits the bicyclist to ride
in the middle of these lanes, doing so intimidates many bicyclists, especially children. It can also upset
motorists who are delayed, and it is not practical at high traffic speeds and volumes. Providing room to
share the road makes traveling safer and more comfortable for all road users.
Enabling the public to use a variety of travel modes, including walking and
bicycling, reduces traffic congestion, improves air quality, contributes to
the public health, facilitates access to school,jobs, shopping,recreation,
and other daily needs, and creates a sense of local community identity and
pride.
Back to ton
Does this mean that every road will have bike lanes and sidewalks?
No. Some roads need no special treatment at all. You don't need to put sidewalks on remote rural roads,
2-13
3 of 8 5/5/00 1:08 PN
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.org/faq.htm
and you wouldn't put bike lanes,or extra roadway width of any kind,on quiet residential streets.
On other roads, a wide outside lane or shoulder might be a more cost-effective solution than a bike lane.
Many people believe these facilities would be safer as well.
SB 1629 allows exceptions where providing access would be contrary to public safety, a safe and
convenient alternative route exists, the cost of the facilities would be disproportionate to need or use,
sparse population indicates an absence of need,or significant adverse environmental effects would
result. These exceptions might apply, for instance, in steep hillside areas where there is no demand for
facilities, on roads so lightly traveled that bicyclists can comfortably share the road with vehicles, such
as most local streets, or on rural roads with little or no pedestrian use.
The provisions of SB 1629 would be triggered only by constriction of new roads or reconstruction of
old ones—the most efficient time to add lane width or sidewalks, if needed. Bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations would not be required during routine resurfacing, signal and signing improvements,
landscaping, lighting, or other incidental work.
Sweets and Hieh� ays Code sec. 890.6 already authorizes Caltrans, in cooperation with county and city
governments,to establish design criteria for roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. This has never
been done, for lack of staff time,but the process would exactly mirror the one in the 1970s that resulted
in California's pioneer planning and design criteria for bikeways. These standards would be an essential
part of the legislation, describing lane and shoulder width, surface quality, signal timing and detection,
and other design features that it would be inappropriate to freeze into statute. The bicycle
accommodations required by SB 1629 would be built in accordance with these new design criteria,
which would probably resemble the Oregon Department of Transportation interpretation of that state's
law.
Rather than specify in detail what facilities should be built on what roads, SB 1629 leaves the process
where it should be, in the hands of professionals, including the cities and counties that are responsible
for local roads, where most bicycle travel takes place. Standards would be written by professionals, and
the presence and type of facilities would be determined entirely by local decision-making. No state
agency would oversee local planning or design. The only change would be that the need for
nonmotorized facilities would be presumed as part of good design practice, and if a local agency felt
there was no need, it would be up to that agency to document it.
Caltrans policy would not have to change drastically—it already calls for considering bicycles in
designing two-lane state highways. The Highway Design Manual already provides that on resurfacing
projects,the entire paved shoulder and traveled way shall be resurfaced (Tonic 1002.1). The Proi eel
Development Procedures.klanual says that"Any development of a State highway project should
consider features beneficial to nonmotorized traffic, including (but not limited to)widening shoulders,
striping, and signing" and "Nonmotorized traffic is not prohibited on expressways and conventional
highways. The vast majority of bicycling is done on public roads with or without bikeway designations.
When the roadway and the shoulders are adequately paved and maintained, they provide safe and
convenient routes for most bicyclists." Design Information Bulletin Number 75 recommends extending
the paving smoothly to the outside shoulder edge, omitting raised pavement markers and other objects,
and assuring that adequate paved width is available for lane sharing, usually in the form of a minimum
four-foot shoulder.
Note: In the language of SB 1629, "the department" means Caltrans (Streets and I Iiehways Code sec.
0). "Highway" is legally equivalent to"street," and includes bridges (Struts and llish-�%ay s Code sec.
"Construction" includes reconstruction, replacement, and any improvement except maintenance
(Sn-ects and I lighy,ays Codc sec. 29). For purposes of SB 1629, resurfacing, landscaping, and signing
and signal improvements are not considered construction.
Back to top
2-14
4 of 8 5/5/00 1:08 PM
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.org/faq.htm
What about freeways and toll bridges?
Where bicyclists aren't permitted access to a freeway shoulder, a separated path would be provided.
Because distances are usually prohibitive,the bill makes no special provision for pedestrian travel.
Toll bridges are different,because by their nature they provide access across barriers where there is no
good alternative. Every toll bridge would have to provide a sidewalk or path for use by pedestrians, and
a shoulder, bike lane, or bike path for use by bicyclists. This provision extends the spirit of Streets and
Highways Code sec. 30913(c), which requires the first of the new Benicia-Martinez and Carquinez
Bridges to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
The Caltrans Proiect Development Procedures N-hutual says that"Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should
be considered on new toll bridges and their connections. Caltrans should coordinate the development of
the facilities with local and regional agencies to ensure continuity of a nonmotorized transportation
system in the area."
Bridges on conventional roadways would be treated as part of the highway.
Back to too
2-15
5 of 8 5/5/00 1:08 PM
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.org/faq.htm
How much will all this cost?
If the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians are considered before roadways are designed, before asphalt is
paved, before concrete is poured, before signs are erected, and before paint has dried, they can be
provided in an efficient and cost-effective way. Retrofitting a poorly designed roadway is difficult and
expensive.
Back to tap
2-16
6 of 8 5/5/00 1:08 PM
Frequently Asked Questions http://www.cabobike.org/faq.htm
What does Federal law say?
SB 1629 prevents restriping an existing roadway for more but narrower lanes, making the outside lane
less hospitable to bicyclists. This requirement is consistent with the new federal highway legislation,
TEA-21, which disqualifies projects from federal funding if they "result in the severance of an existing
major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety of nonmotorized transportation traffic"
unless an alternative exists or is provided(2; U.S.C. sec. 109(m)).
This bill would also be consistent with, but stronger than, other provisions of TEA-21, such as the
following (from 23 U.S.C. sec. 217(0):
"Bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans
developed by each metropolitan planning organization and State. ... "
"Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered,where appropriate, in
conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where
bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted."
"Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for
bicyclists and pedestrians."
The U.S. Department of Transportation has just issued a design guidance document for Accommodating
Bievcle and Pedestrian Travel: A.Recommended .approach. This new document recommends that
bicycle and pedestrian ways be established in new construction and reconstruction projects in all
urbanized areas except where bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway,
the cost would be excessively disproportionate(defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the
transportation project)to need or probable use, or sparsity of population or other factors indicate an
absence of need. In rural areas,paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and
reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day.
The statement goes on to say:
"The United States Department of Transportation encourages States, local governments, professional
associations, other government agencies and community organizations to adopt this Policy Statement as
an indication of their commitment to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of
the transportation system."
Back to toi
2-17
7 of 8 5/5/00 1:08 PM
Requently.Asked.Questions http://www.cabobike.grg/faq.hur,
Last updated:'26 April 2000
2=10
8 of 8 5/5%00 1:08 Pb
SB 1629 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis http://info.sen.ca.&,ov/pub/h"""-e..._cfa_20000623_155028_asm_comm.html
Attachment
SB 1629
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Tom Torlakson, Chair
SB 1629 (Sher) - As Amended: May 9, 2000
SENATE VOTE 23-14
SUBJECT Highways: pedestrian and bicycle access
SUMMARY Provides that all major roads constructed on or after
January 1, 2002, with some specified exceptions, shall include
pedestrian and bicycle access. Specifically, this bill .
1)Creates the "Good Roads for the 21st Century Act" (Act) to
take effect on January 1, 2002. Li
x.
'c
CC
2)Provides that this act shall not apply to:
a) Any highway for which the final design has been approved
and for which construction begins or a contract is awarded
on or before January 1, 2003; or
b) Any toll bridge project authorized or specified by
existing law.
3)Prohibits any work exempted by the measure (described above in
#2) from decreasing the existing level of pedestrian and
bicycle access or the safety features along and across the
highway or toll bridge.
4)Requires that every highway, other than a freeway, include
sidewalks, paths, walkways, or equivalent facilities on both
sides of the highway.
S)Requires that every highway, other than a freeway, include
accommodations for bicycle travel, either by bike lane or
shared roadway, which can include a shoulder.
6)Provides that construction to accommodate bicyclists shall
conform to existing minimum safety design criteria and uniform
standards.
7)Requires that every new toll bridge and every toll bridge that
is substantially reconstructed or modified to increase the
SB 1629
Page 2
number of vehicle lanes include a sidewalk or path for use by
pedestrians, and a shoulder, bike lane, or bike path for use
by bicyclists.
8)Provides that the above requirements shall not apply if, after
conducting a public hearing, the responsible agency finds any
2.19
1 of 6 6/30/00 4:08 PM
SB 1629 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/b,* .._cfa_20000623_155028_asm_comm.html
of the following: -
a) Providing the pedestrian or bicycle access is contrary
to public safety;
b) An alternative route exists that is equally safe and
convenient;
c) The cost of the facilities would be disproportionate to
projected need or use;
d) Sparse population or other factors indicate an absence
of need for such access; or
e) Significant adverse environmental effects would result.
9)Defines "construction" as the following:
a) New construction;
b) Reconstruction;
c) Replacement; and
d) Modification to increase the number of vehicle lanes,
except in the vicinity of toll booths.
10) Provides that the definition of "construction, " except when
the number of vehicle lanes is increased in areas other than
the vicinity of toll booths, shall not include the following:
a) Resurfacing;
b) Restoration;
c) Rehabilitation;
d) Toll bridge deck replacement;
SB 1629
Page 3
e) Toll bridge seismic retrofit;
f) Installation of, or improvements to, planting,
illumination, traffic control devices, or toll booths and
restriping in the vicinity of toll booths;
g) Maintenance; and
h) Other incidental alterations.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) , which authorizes highway, highway safety,
transit and other surface transportation programs for the next
six years, provides the following:
1)Federal funds may be used for the construction of pedestrian
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities.
2)Projects shall be disqualified from federal funding if they
2-20
2 of 6 6/30/00 4:08 PM
SB 1629 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/b'.. cfa_20000623_155028_asm_comm.htrnl
result in the severance of an existing major route-or have
significant adverse impact on the safety of non-motorized
transportation traffic, unless an alternative exists or is
provided.
3)Bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in
the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each
metropolitan planning organization and state in accordance
with federal law.
4)Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways
shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with
all new construction and reconstruction of transportation
facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not
permitted.
5)Transportation plans and projects shall provide due
consideration for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists
and pedestrians.
EXISTING STATE LAW
1)States the intent of the Legislature to establish a bicycle
transportation system.
2)Authorizes a city or county to prepare a bicycle
SB 1629
Page 4
transportation plan and submit it to the county transportation
commission or transportation planning agency for approval and
funding.
3)Requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) , in
cooperation with county and city governments, to establish
minimum safety design criteria for the planning and
construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is
permitted.
4)Creates the Bicycle Transportation Account in the State
Transportation Fund to provide for improvements in bicycle
transportation.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : For supporters of this bill, requiring that future
roads include accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists is a
logical step in the emerging smart growth movement. They assert
that by providing more opportunities for non-motorized methods
of transportation, this bill will help reduce congestion,
improve air quality, and provide for healthier communities.
With pedestrians making up over 20%- of all traffic-related
fatalities, supporters contend that many current roadways need
better design requirements. According to 1998 California
Highway Patrol statistics, 15,367 pedestrians and 12,259
bicyclists were killed or injured in traffic-related accidents.
The requirements of this bill could enhance the safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists as well as motorists. The shoulders
required on state highways could increase the safety for all
users by providing room for emergency stops and aiding police in
2-21
3 of 6 6/30/00 4:08 PM
SB 1629 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis http://info.sen.ca.aov/pub/bi" .. cfa 20000623_155028_asm_comm.html
redirecting traffic. -
The sponsors claim that 50% of all non-commercial trips are
under three miles in length and that, with better road design,
bicycling and walking are realistic transportation alternatives.
Further, the sponsors note that a more diverse transportation
system would benefit the young, the elderly, the disabled, the
disadvantaged, and others who cannot drive or who do not have
access to motor vehicles. According to the sponsors, increased
opportunities for bicycling and walking can also provide health
benefits, especially as a practical approach in the prevention
of obesity. An article in the Journal of American Medicine
notes, "Automobile trips that can be safely replaced by walking
SB 1629
Page 5
or bicycling offer the first target for increased physical
activity in communities. "
In its Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking
Into Transportation Infrastructure, the United States Department
of Transportation (DOT) recognizes that "conditions for
bicycling and walking need to be improved in every community in
the United States. " A few states already have laws in place
requiring the construction of footpaths or bikeways on their
roadways. An Oregon law requiring that " [flootpaths and bicycle
trails, including curb cuts or ramps as part of the project,
shall be provided wherever a highway, road or street is being
constructed, reconstructed or relocated" has been in place since
1971. Massachusetts and Hawaii have similar requirements for
their state highways.
Opponents, however, contend that the decision to provide bicycle
and pedestrian access should be determined locally and that this
bill would divert funding away from badly needed road
maintenance. Opponents point to Caltrans' estimates that adding
bike access increases construction costs by $500 to $100,000 per
mile. A six-lane suburban freeway without specific bike lanes
or walkways costs approximately $30 million per mile.
The bill does provide for certain exceptions, such as when the
costs of providing pedestrian and bicycle access are
disproportionate to anticipated need or use. The sponsors
contend these exceptions provide local authorities with the
necessary flexibility. They also note that motor vehicles cause
greater wear and tear to the roads, resulting in more costly
road maintenance requirements, while bicycling and walking
impose fairly minimal roadway costs.
Related legislation : SB 1772 (Brulte) increases transfers to the
Bicycle Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund.
This bill is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly
Transportation Committee
SB 1809 (Johnston) requires that 10% of federal minimum
guarantee funds be allocated for transportation enhancement
activities. This bill is schedule for a hearing in the Assembly
Transportation Committee.
Authors Amendments Makes technical changes to correct an
erroneous cross-reference and to restore the words "by
2-22
4 of 6 6/30/00 4:08 PM
SB 1629 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/b-*' cfa_20000623_155028_asm_comm.html
SB 1629
Page 6
pedestrians in the provision requiring sidewalks, paths, and
walkways.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION
Support
California Association of Bicycling Organizations (co-sponsor)
California Bicycle Coalition (co-sponsor)
Alameda City Transit Advocates
Association of Bay Area Governments
Bay Area Action
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
California Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Coalition
City of Berkeley
City of Emeryville
City of Palo Alto
City of Menlo Park
City of Oakland
Cycle California! Magazine
East Bay Bicycle Coalition
Fresno Cycling Club
Independent Cyclists of San Mateo County
Livable Streets Coalition of Santa Barbara County
Orange County Bicycle Coalition
Peninsula Rail 2000
Planning and Conservation League
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Safe Paths of Hillsborough
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bay Area Pedestrian Education Group
San Francisco Bay Trail (administered by the Association of Bay
Area Governments)
San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
Specialized Bicycles
Surface Transportation Policy Project
Sustainable San Mateo County
Tree Foundation of Kern
Urban Ecology
WalkSacramento
Walk San Jose
western Wheelers Bicycle Club, Inc.
_ 7 private letters
SB 1629
Page 7
Opposition
2-23
5 of 6 6/30/00 4:08 PM
SB 1629 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis http://info.sen.ca.,aov/pub/b. ..._cfa_20000623_155028_asm_comm.html
California State Association of Counties
California Trucking Association
City of Merced
City of Stockton
League of California Cities
Analysis Prepared by Emily Chang / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
2-24
6 of 6 6/30/00 4:08 PM
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTIONNO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1629:GOOD ROADS FOR THE 21 sr
CENTURY,IF IT IS AMENDED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONAND
ADMINISTRATION CONCERNS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of supporting forms of transportation
that offer alternatives to the use of private motor vehicles;and
WHEREAS, the City has aggressively planned and developed facilities for the safety and
convenience of bicyclists and pedestrians throughout San Luis Obispo;and
WHEREAS, the City has carefully evaluated the administrative and physical impacts that the
passage of SB 1629 (as amended June 15, 2000)will have on effective circulation planning within San Luis
Obispo;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby supports the passage of SB 1629 and urges the California
Legislature, especially those members representing the San Luis Obispo Area, to support passage of this
legislation if it is amended to address the following issues:
A. Application: streets within residential districts where forecasted traffic volumes are 3,000
vehicles per day or less should be exempt from the provisions of SB 1629.
B. Phased Improvements:SB 1629 should be amended to enable public agencies to undertake and/or
approve the phased construction of circulation improvements without having to initiate the
public hearing and exemption process that is currently part of the draft legislation.
C. Definitions: the text of the bill should include explicit definitions of important terms used to
guide the bill's application and implementation. These terms include,but are not limited to the
following:highway;vehicle lanes; reconstruction,rehabilitation;restoration;and replacement.
Upon motion of ,seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18'day of July,2000.
2-25
v
Page 2- Resolution (2000 Series)
Mayor Allen Settle
.ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo ens ,.CitviAtforney
2-26
ATTACHMENT F
RESOLUTIONNO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1629:GOOD ROADS FOR THE 21 sr
CENTURY,AS AMENDED AND ACTED ON BY THE CALIFORNIA SENATE(June 15,2000)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of supporting forms of transportation
that offer alternatives to the use of private motor vehicles;and
WHEREAS, the City has aggressively planned and developed facilities for the safety and
convenience of bicyclists and pedestrians throughout San Luis Obispo;and
WHEREAS, with advice from the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Advisory Committee,the City Council
has considered the content of SB 1629 as amended and acted on by the California Senate on June 15,2000.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby support the passage of SB1629 (as amended on June 15,
2000), and urges the California Legislature, especially those members representing the San Luis Obispo
Area,to support passage of this legislation.
Upon motion of ,seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18" day of July,2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
*Irey/11-Jq 6sp<City Attorney
2-27