Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In
State Capitol Updates

Assembly Transportation Committee Whittles Away at Safe Street Bills

Legislative update: Bills to require streets that are safe for everyone and to limit Class III bikeways (sharrows and signs) are amended to reflect little more than the status quo

Complete Streets

Senator Scott Wiener was clearly disappointed, but he accepted the amendments to his Complete Streets bill suggested by Assembly Transportation Chair Lori Wilson to get it passed by the committee yesterday. It did, on a 7-1 vote. But with Wilson's amendments - actually, they are Caltrans' amendments - the bill is only a whisper of what it originally set out to be: a requirement for California road builders to recognize that there are other people on those roads besides drivers, and that their needs have to be taken into account.

Many surface roads in California are owned and maintained by Caltrans, and that has inhibited cities from adding complete streets elements including sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, crosswalks, median islands, narrower travel lanes, and the like. While Caltrans has adopted a Complete Streets policy, and says it is increasing the number of bike and pedestrian facilities in its projects, a CalBike analysis found that most SHOPP projects found some reason not to do so.

S.B. 960 still calls for Caltrans to incorporate Complete Streets principles into projects under the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), the largest source of funding for state-owned roads. But the committee amendments refer back to Caltrans' existing policy, which says it will do so "to the extent beneficial, cost effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby alternative facilities, and where feasible." That "feasible," especially, gives Caltrans a lot of wiggle room, which the department has made clear it will use.

The committee analysis notes that these amendments are just "the first round of suggested amendments from Caltrans." That sounds like a direct threat of future hostile amendments from the department. This bill has been in the legislature for two years, and this is the first time Caltrans has come forward with "suggested amendments." That sure doesn't look like good-faith negotiating. Caltrans should stop hiding behind legislators and committee analyses and just make their arguments: They won't accept anything that could cut into existing funding for road maintenance.

And they don't yet see people on bikes, foot, or transit as legitimate road users.

Avoiding Useless "Class III" Bike Routes

A similar problem reduced Senator Blakespear's bill that sought to limit the use of what are called "Class III bikeways." These are basically either sharrows or signed bike routes - they are not lanes at all, either painted or protected or separated from traffic. One of the fundamental problems with even identifying these as "Class III" facilities is that they show up on maps as bike lanes and routes, even though they require bike riders to share space with fast-moving car traffic. Most bike riders seeking routes through unknown areas would expect something more than just signage or sharrows.

Sharrows can also lend an air of legitimacy to projects that don't deserve it - Caltrans claims credit for incorporating bicycle facilities into its highway projects even if all it does is slap down sharrows on a 40mph overpass. And they get the credit! Gee, I wonder why "nobody" bikes over Highway 99 in all those Central Valley towns (except for people who desperately need to).

Sharrows can occasionally be marginally useful, but only under very limited circumstances - on very slow, lightly traveled neighborhood streets, for example. The city of Berkeley has employed similar markings for years on its "bicycle boulevards," but these quiet neighborhood streets include numerous other traffic calming devices, including straight-out blocking vehicle traffic.

At yesterday's hearing, Senator Blakespear accepted the committee amendments, which limit where sharrows can be painted (to roads slower than 30 mph) but not where "bike route" signs can be added. So a jurisdiction can still put up signs and call the street a "Class III facility," no matter how fast or heavy traffic is.

The bill's sponsors, Streets for All, did not even argue in support.

These bills should not be necessary to begin with, but that they are fought against so hard by Caltrans and others - including a long list of rural regional governments - makes advocating for safety an exhausting, demoralizing job. It just should not be so hard to improve the safety of vulnerable road users.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

Wednesday’s Headlines

A larger than usual headlines stack as we careen towards the 4th of July.

July 2, 2025

Inner Richmond Parents Fed Up with SFMTA Watering Down Safety

Mother of a child hit by a driver furious with city excuses for not taking daylighting and other safety measures seriously.

July 2, 2025

Governor Signs Major Changes to CEQA to Cheers from YIMBYs, Jeers from Environmental Groups

Newsom fast tracked changes to CEQA to fast track development and housing. But what do the changes to the law actually do?

July 1, 2025

Santa Monica and West Hollywood Bus Lane/Stop Enforcement Programs Start Today

Don't block the bus! Parking in a bus lane or at a bus stop will result in a $293 ticket.

July 1, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines

Gov Signs CEQA Bill to Increase Housing, Higher Fees on Parking and Tolls, Opposition to Road Widenings, ICE

July 1, 2025

Does Constant Driving Really Make Our Country Richer?

A new study reveals that constant driving is making America less productive and prosperous — and getting people on other modes could help right the ship.

June 30, 2025
See all posts