If you’re typical, that doesn’t feel right to you. You may be thinking to yourself, doesn’t everyone pay attention to the speed limit like I do? Sure, there are some people who do, but observations over the past 60+ years of motorist behavior in response to a change in the speed limit shows that on roads and streets that are not subject to a statewide maximum speed limit, the change in actual speeds is often too small to measure. I learned early in my career as a traffic engineer not to project my own beliefs and behaviors on the rest of the population. Response to speed limits is just one example of that.

Since speed limits do not have a measurable influence on actual speeds, it makes sense to set speed limits so as not to make lawbreakers out of a large fraction of motorists. Speed limits that are set too low makes law enforcement more difficult and leads to a disrespect for speed limits.

Shown here is a speed distribution on a rural road. Notice that the distribution is quite narrow, meaning that most motorists drive at nearly the same speed. You will see that changing the speed limit by just 5 mph will make a big change in the number of violators.

So the 85th percentile rule is simply a recognition that speed limits are set for the purposes of enforcement. And since law enforcement only has the resources to cite the most egregious violations, the speed limit is established at or near the 85th percentile, making only about 15% of free-flowing motorists violators.

You may also notice that motorists who go a few mph over the speed limit are not cited. That occurs for two reasons. The first is the lack of law enforcement resources. But where the system really falls down is at the judicial level. Traffic court judges routinely give a 10-12 mph leeway on speeding tickets out of a false belief that radar is inaccurate. So even if some motorists do base their speeds on the speed limit, they routinely go about 10 mph over and almost never get a ticket.

There is a way to control speeds. Leonard Evans, a traffic safety specialist, describes it in his book, Traffic Safety, which is available online. He points out that combining automated in-vehicle speed enforcement with a small fine would cause everyone to lower their speeds immediately. He observes that it is not the size of the fine, but the certainty of being caught that influences behavior. Unfortunately, privacy concerns have prevented serious consideration of such a system. I am fond of asking, though, “What does privacy have to do with driving an automobile?” After all, driving a car is supposed to be a privilege, not a right.

Another thing: Over the years, I have gotten to know many policemen in my career as a city traffic engineer. One of the things they tell me is that the worst speed violators tend to be the politicians. So it is unlikely that the politicians would ever approve a system that would force them to slow down.

So, if speed limits don’t really control speeds, is there a way to keep speeds down? Perhaps the best way to implement in-vehicle speed enforcement systems is to start with motorists who drive for a living and are regulated by law enforcement anyway, such as truck or taxi drivers. Once that is proven practical and effective, then perhaps the system could be expanded to drivers convicted of DUI, then teenagers, and eventually every motorist on the road.

Below is a report on that meeting, but first a little background on how the meeting came about:

In January 2008, Bob Shanteau was appointed as the bicyclist representative of the AB 1581 Subcommittee to the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, which was tasked with developing language to be included in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

AB 1581, authored by Assemblymember Jean Fuller and sponsored by ABATE, the statewide motorcyclist group, and the California Bicycle Coalition, required motorcycle and bicycle detection at new and modified traffic actuated signals, but to take effect only after Caltrans had adopted standards and guidelines for motorcycle/bicycle detection and related signal timing. At the Subcommittee’s first meeting early that year Bob Shanteau met James Lombardo, who, as lobbyist for the statewide motorcyclist group ABATE, was largely responsible for the passage of AB 1581. He and Bob worked closely together as the Subcommittee tried to develop appropriate language for the CA MUTCD, but by late 2008 they had run into problems with Caltrans, the CHP and local agencies on enforcement, engineering, education, legislation, etc.

Bob thought back to the meetings of the Statewide Bicycle Committee that he attended in 1974 when he was president of the Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Association (now the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition), which led to the 1975-76 legislation that revised the Vehicle Code and the Streets and Highways Code. He recalled that the Statewide Bicycle Committee had been created by Senate Concurrent Resolution 47 in 1973, authored by Senator Pro Tem James Mills. Bob and James figured that a new committee would be a good way to work out the problems they were seeing.

During the February 2009 CABO Board meeting, Bob was appointed as Transportation Engineering Liaison for CABO. At the same meeting, he recommended that CABO find a legislator to carry a resolution to create the new committee. He also recommended hiring a lobbyist to represent CABO while the resolution wound its way through the legislature. The CABO Board approved both recommendations and hired James Lombardo as its lobbyist. Alan Wachtel, CABO’s Legislative Liaison, was to work with James in getting a resolution for a new statewide bicycle committee through the legislature. One of the first tasks was to find a legislator to carry the resolution.

CABO President Jim Baross then contacted longtime friend Christine Kehoe, his State Senator and Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to ask her to carry the resolution. She recommended that a stakeholders task force be formed instead. James and Jim then worked with Senator Kehoe’s staff through the rest of 2009 to schedule an initial meeting, but with the state budget occupying the Legislature, it took most of the year. Everything finally came together in December for a meeting to take place in Senator Kehoe’s office on January 6, 2010.

***
Attending the meeting on 1/6/2010 in Senator Kehoe’s office were:
Senator Christine Kehoe
Senator Kehoe’s aide Gil Topete
CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow
CHP legislative aide Capt. Avery Browne
Caltrans Director Randy Iwasaki
Caltrans Legislative Liaison Ted Link-Oberstar
CABO President Jim Baross
CABO Legislative Liaison Alan Wachtel
CABO Transportation Engineering Liaison Bob Shanteau
CABO lobbyist James Lombardo
California Peace Officers’ Association Government Relations Manager John Lovell
California State Sheriffs’ Association legislative representative Danielle Higgs
Senate Transportation Committee consultant Jennifer Gress

Senator Kehoe opened the meeting and asked for self introductions. She then called on Jim Baross.

Jim told about Senate Concurrent Resolution 47 in 1973 that resulted in the Statewide Bicycle Committee, which met during 1974 and the legislation that was considered and passed during the 1975-76 legislative session. He said that some recommendations of the SCR 47 Committee had not been implemented and that some things had changed since then. He went over the reasons why more people are choosing to bicycle now. He said that we support increasing safe, courteous and lawful bicycling.

Senator Kehoe agreed with the reasons to encourage bicycling, including reduction of greenhouse gases and health.

Jim Baross then described how the California Vehicle Code was being interpreted by police and judges as requiring bicyclists to get out of the way of cars, which is in conflict to the way that the League of American Bicyclists teaches bicyclists how to ride on the roads, which is, when necessary for personal safety, to ride in the way of cars. He used a story from an episode of Seinfeld to illustrate his point, where George is driving a car and hits and kills a pigeon. His passenger is alarmed, but George explains, “We have a deal with pigeons. We let them use the streets as long as they stay out of our way. That pigeon broke the deal.”

Jim went on to describe how the Vehicle Code is being interpreted differently around the State and how levels of enforcement differ. He described a lack of uniformity of both traffic control devices and designs. Public agencies are introducing innovative approaches to accommodate bicyclists without going through any approval process at the state level. He requested help on this point. Also, bicyclists are requesting representation on the California Traffic Control Devices.

Randy Iwasaki said that he agreed with the need for uniformity with standards and that revisions were needed, but that each agency can have its own highway design standards.

Bob Shanteau pointed out that part of the 1975-76 legislative package included a provision in the Streets and Highways Code saying that the Caltrans Highway Design Manual was mandatory for local agencies on bikeways and on roads on which bicycle travel was permitted.

Senator Kehoe said she supported adding bicyclist representation to the CTCDC would be a good thing and that avoiding a bill to do so would be a good thing.

Randy Iwasaki wanted to make sure that those present were aware of DD-64-R1 that he had signed when he was still Deputy Director. He said that the goal was to make sure that bicyclists and motor vehicles can coexist peacefully, which was a shock to many of the engineers at Caltrans.

Senator Kehoe expressed concern about differing interpretations of the Vehicle Code and different levels of enforcement around the State.

Joe Farrow said that safety was of primary importance to the CHP. He said that for consistency of enforcement that CHP would work with the police chiefs and sheriffs. He said that the CHP recognizes that any law applicable to motor vehicles is also applicable to bicyclists. He said that the CHP only issued 6 citations last year for bicyclists riding in the middle of a lane. When a bicyclist is an impediment, their officers more commonly ask the bicyclist to move to the right. Currently, CHP interprets the law as requiring bicyclists to ride to the right, so he said there is a need to talk. He described CHP’s involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Program, which also involves the California Office of Traffic Safety, Caltrans, and bicyclists. He said that the CHP sends advisory notices to the police chiefs and the sheriffs, and most follow CHP advice.

John Lovell said that he and the CHP provide annual training in criminal and traffic laws to law enforcement training officers in several locations around the state. He said the police don’t have the expertise that CHP does, so they follow CHP advice on traffic enforcement. He welcomed our offer to provide bicyclist input into this training.

Danielle Higgs said that the sheriffs work closely with the police chiefs on the training.

Senator Kehoe said that the SCR 47 Committee was dormant and the SHSP could address some issues, but there were still issues that needed to be addressed.

Jim Baross said we were anxious to be involved in modifying the training provided by the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST). He said that he had been working with CHP Assistant Chief Howland on SHSP matters, but that the last he had heard from Howland was in August and that he has since moved on.

John Lovell confirmed that the training to which he referred was POST-certified.

Jim Baross then said that some of the confusion was because of the incomplete wording in the CHP Redi-Ref concerning CVC 21202.

Senator Kehoe said that rather than legislation, she preferred that the stakeholders have several meetings to address POST training and the law.

John Lovell suggested that no legislation was necessary for the time being and that the stakeholders have 2 or 3 meetings, with legislation in the future.

Randy Iwasaki described how the SHSP was a major effort with 80 challenge areas. He said that coordination problems with other agencies, particularly the DMV and CHP, are worked out in quarterly directors meetings. He said that he agreed with the need for uniformity and that bicyclists need to be represented on the CTCDC. He said that Caltrans was represented at CTCDC meetings by Robert Copp.

Bob Shanteau pointed out that Wayne Henley represented Caltrans at the CTCDC. He said that he had written a Decision Document and that the California Bicycle Advisory Committee had approved it and sent it on to the CTCDC for consideration at its next meeting on January 21.

John Lovell said that it would be helpful to add a break out section to the annual notice of legislative changes.

Joe Farrow said that he sees two sets of bicyclists – those who follow the law and those who don’t. He said that when he was on patrol and saw a group of bicyclists in 2 or 3 rows who looked like they knew what they were doing, he did not bother them. Mixed use of roads, however, presents an inherent danger, what with the difference in speeds and the vulnerability of bicyclists.

At this point, Senator Kehoe was called to the Senate floor for a vote. She directed the group to work out the details and to get back to her in June. CHP and Caltrans will take the lead in coordination with her office. The police chiefs, sheriffs and POST would also be involved in the dialog. She instructed the group to work out the details, including membership.

Jim Baross said that education was crucial, starting in the elementary schools. He said that the goal of the group should be to resolve apparent differing approaches to portions of the CVC related to bicycling so that LAB Bike Ed instruction and traffic enforcement actions are in agreement.

Senator Kehoe said that she wanted the first stakeholders meeting within a month and for us to add the appropriate members. CHP would take the lead in organizing the meetings and James Lombardo would take the lead for the bicyclists.

Ken McGuire, Secretary
California Bicycle Advisory Committee – MS1
P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA-94274-0001

Subject: Proposal by City of Long Beach to Experiment with Separated/Protected Bikeway on the Left Side of Two One-Way Streets

by email to (email address deleted)

Dear Mr. McGuire:

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) has reviewed the documents prepared by the City of Long Beach in support of a “protected bikeway” and notes that it fails to comply with the guidance and standards in the California Streets and Highways Code and Vehicle Code and in the Caltrans “Highway Design Manual”. In light of this noncompliance and the resulting potential problems of traffic safety, traffic operations, and the failure by the City to address the status of bicyclists as legitimate highway users, CABO hereby requests that CBAC adopt a finding that the Long Beach proposal fails to comply with these references and to forward this finding to the City of Long Beach. The reasons for this request are detailed below.

First, the Streets and Highways Code prescribes the following process for establishing design criteria for bikeways:

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.

The Streets and Highways Code then goes on to require local agencies, without exception, to comply with the minimum safety design criteria for bikeways as established by Caltrans:

SHC 891 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.

The Caltrans bikeway design criteria are contained in the Highway Design Manual. The HDM recommends against facilities such as the proposed project:

HDM Topic 1003.1(5) Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips.

Because it recommends against bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways, the HDM contains no design criteria for such facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is breaking new ground. One would think that the appropriate thing would be for Long Beach to apply for permission to experiment with its new design. The HDM, however, contains no procedure for experimentation by local agencies. This is clearly a gap in the HDM that needs to be filled. CABO is already working with CBAC and Caltrans to fill that gap. Until that happens, however, every local agency is subject to the requirement in SHC 891 to “utilize all minimum safety design criteria” in the “planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted” as contained in the HDM.

Second, the proposed project involves multiple intersections and driveways. Long Beach has already addressed the signalized intersections by including vehicular left turn lanes and left turn phases separate from the bicycle facility. But for the unsignalized intersections and driveways, of which there are many, Long Beach proposes only cuts in the buffer island. By placing through bicyclists to the left of left turning vehicles, Long Beach is violating a basic tenet of highway design: never to place turning traffic in front of adjacent through traffic. The Vehicle Code puts it this way:

CVC 22100 Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:
(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway …
(b) Left Turns. The approach for a left turn shall be made as close as practicable to the left-hand edge of the extreme left-hand lane or portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle and, when turning at an intersection, the left turn shall not be made before entering the intersection.

Third, the proposed project provides for no traffic control at the unsignalized intersections and driveways except perhaps for a green pavement marking to warn turning drivers that they are crossing a bicycle facility. Apparently, Long Beach expects drivers to yield to bicyclists at these locations in the same way that drivers yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. But bicyclists travel much faster than pedestrians and the green pavement markings will suggest to bicyclists that turning vehicles must yield to them. This will result in left hook conflicts that Long Beach has not yet sufficiently addressed.

The HDM addresses conflicts at intersections between bike paths and highways by calling for stop or yield signs for bicyclists along with sufficient sight distance for bicyclists and drivers to avoid a collision, neither of which is provided by the proposed project. The HDM addresses intersections with highways, design speed and stopping sight distance as follows:

HDM Index 1003.1 Class I Bikeways
(4) Intersections with Highways
Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of right of way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice.
Bicycle path intersections and approaches should be on relatively flat grades. Stopping sight distances at intersections should be checked and adequate warning should be given to permit bicyclists to stop before reaching the intersection, especially on downgrades.
(7) Design Speed
The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the terrain. The minimum design speed for bike paths shall be 25 miles per hour …
(9) Stopping Sight Distance. To provide bicyclists with an opportunity to see and react to the unexpected, a bicycle path should be designed with adequate stopping sight distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a function of the bicyclist’s perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tires and the pavement, and the braking ability of the bicycle.

Some people might note the permissive language in Index 1003.1 and conclude that since the HDM does not say that adequate stopping sight distance shall be provided on bike paths, it is all right not to do so at bike path/road intersections. That conclusion, however, would conflict with the direction in the Streets and Highways Code that bicyclists are legitimate users of public roads and highways:

SHC 885.2 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(f) The bicycle is a legitimate transportation mode on public roads and highways.

By not providing appropriate sight distance at unsignalized intersections, Long Beach is treating bicyclists as something other than legitimate users of its streets. If Long Beach were to treat bicyclists as legitimate users of its streets, it would provide adequate sight distance at all unsignalized intersections as stated in Chapter 400 of the HDM:

HDM Index 405.1 Sight Distance
(2) Corner Sight Distance.
(a) General–At unsignalized intersections a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle.
Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed.
(b) Public Road Intersections At unsignalized public road intersections corner sight distance values given in Table 405.1A should be provided.
Where restrictive conditions exist, the minimum value for corner sight distance at both signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be equal to the stopping sight distance.

Even if the City of Long Beach does not by policy comply with the HDM, whatever policy it does have surely has a similar requirement.

Fourth, the failure by Long Beach to provide adequate stopping sight distance is shown in the diagram [available here] on the following page. As can be seen, parked vehicles block the sight line between a bicyclist and a left turning driver for much of the bicyclist’s stopping sight distance before reaching the unsignalized intersection. The driver is placed in an impossible position of having to look behind and to the left in order to see an approaching bicyclist and to judge whether or not there will be a conflict. If the driver either does not see the bicyclist (because a parked vehicle or the structure of the vehicle is in the way or the driver has insufficient range of motion) or misjudges the bicyclist’s speed and turns in front of the bicyclist, the bicyclist will be left with insufficient room to avoid a collision. If turning drivers are expected to yield to through bicyclists, then it could be argued that the driver was responsible for the collision. But it could also be argued that City of Long Beach was responsible because it did not provide adequate sight distance so that the driver and the bicyclist could see what was about to happen and thus take action in time to avoid the collision.

Instead of protecting bicyclists, the City of Long Beach is placing them in situations where collisions are not only predictable, they are inevitable. This is a direct result of the attempt by the City to create “protected bikeways” on two of its streets without considering a basic highway design principle.

Fifth, CABO is concerned that providing “protected bikeways” on Broadway and 3rd Street in the City of Long Beach will influence both bicyclist and motorist acceptance of bicyclists as legitimate users of the road elsewhere in Long Beach and indeed in California. As noted above, Section 885.2 of the Streets and Highways Code states that bicyclists are legitimate road users.

Also, the California Vehicle Code says that every bicyclist on a highway (or street) has all the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles:

CVC 21200 (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

Since the ” protected bikeway” will be on a highway, bicyclists will have all the rights and be subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle, but the City of Long Beach has designed a facility in such a way that bicyclists are not provided with the same highway design features as vehicles.

By providing a “protected bikeway” adjacent to a street, the proposed project treats bicyclists as something other than legitimate road users with privileges and duties of something other than the driver of a vehicle, which is inconsistent with legislative intent concerning the status of bicyclists.

The City of Long Beach has represented that bicyclists may lawfully ride in the roadway instead of on the “protected bikeway”. They might do this to reach destinations on the right side of the street, because they prefer the speed and efficiency of the roadway, because they are keeping up with other traffic, or to avoid hazards. But as shown in the previous diagram, the travel lanes are only 10 ft wide. This is much too narrow for a bicyclist and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane, so bicyclists would not be required to ride as far right as practicable (see CVC 21202(a)(3). Therefore bicyclists may lawfully control the travel lane (indeed, bicyclists using narrow travel lanes should control the lane for their own safety). Still, it seems plausible that bicyclists who lawfully control one of those lanes may face harassment in the form of shouting, honking, or close passing from motorists who resent sharing the road and believe that cyclists should use the separated bikeway instead. The City of Long Beach has not informed us how it will respond to such hostile acts. In particular, it has not said if it will educate bicyclists, motorists, and police officers that bicyclists are fully entitled to use the travel lanes and that it should be expected.

In conclusion, CABO believes that the proposed project fails to recognize the issues of traffic safety, traffic operations, and the status of bicyclists as legitimate users of the road with the same privileges and duties as drivers of vehicles. We urge the California Bicycle Advisory Committee to make a finding that the proposed project is not in compliance with either State law or with the Highway Design Manual and to recommend to the City of Long Beach that it not be constructed as proposed.

Sincerely,

Jim Baross
CABO President

Robert M. Shanteau
CABO Transportation Engineering Liaison

Devinder Singh, Secretary
California Traffic Control Devices Committee – MS36
P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA-94274-0001

Subject: Item 09-21 on 9/24/09 CTCDC agenda
Request by the City of Long Beach for Permission to Experiment with Separated/Protected Bikeway on the Left Side of Two-Way Streets (Rte 9-112E)

by email to (address deleted)

Dear Mr. Singh:

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) has reviewed the subject Request to Experiment (RTE) and notes that it fails to acknowledge previous trials in California of separated bikeways, particularly in the City of Davis and the City of Palo Alto, both of which were abandoned in favor of the standard bikeways now defined in the California Streets and Highways Code, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In light of this previous negative experience with separated bikeways and the potential problems of traffic safety, traffic operations, and the status of bicyclists as legitimate highway users, CABO hereby requests that CTCDC reject the subject RTE or, if the CTCDC feels that the RTE may still have merit, refer it to the California Bicycle Advisory Committee for a recommendation on action by the CTCDC. The reasons for this request are detailed below.

First, according to Section 1A.10 of the CA MUTCD, an RTE should include, “(a)ny supporting data explaining how the traffic control device was developed, if it has been tried, in what ways it was found to be adequate or inadequate, and how this choice of device or application was derived.” CABO is aware of at least two times when separated bikeways have been tried, once in Davis in 1967 and once in Palo Alto in about 1970. Both times, the trials were terminated. The first trial is documented in a 2007 thesis by Theodore J. Buehler titled, “Fifty Years of Bicycle Policy in Davis, CA” and available at <http://www.davisbicycles.org/BuehlerThesisFinalDraft.pdf>. Mr. Buehler writes:

Lane location relative to motorized traffic
The early experiments included three different types of bike facilities:
1) bike lanes between car lanes [sic] and the parking lane (Third St.),
2) bike lanes between the parking lane and the curb (Sycamore Lane), and
3) bike paths adjacent to the street, between the curb and the sidewalk (Villanova Ave.).
The first bike lanes included all of these types, to test them in real life to see how effective they were. The on-road lanes worked best, the behind-parking lanes were the worst, and the adjacent paths were found to work in certain circumstances.
This is an example of the wide level of experimentation that occurred during this period. Had the city tried to do extensive research without construction, it might have settled on an inferior design. And not having tried all three designs, it might not have recognized it as inferior, and the entire experiment could have been declared a failure.
Uniform design standards for bike lanes and paths
By 1972, Davis had established a uniform code for building bicycle facilities. These included all of the standard design guidelines found in conventional street templates, including cross-sections, longitudinal sections, intersection treatments, recommendations for special circumstances, etc. These, developed through no small effort by city staff, allowed the policy to be enforced with precision when new developments were being proposed in the city.
Adoption of Davis bikeway standards as state and federal standards
Not only were the standards established, but they were soon replicated at the state and federal level, and used as templates for all subsequent bikeway construction in the United States.

Second, the Streets and Highways Code prescribes the following process for establishing design criteria for bikeways:

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.

Although Long Beach is only requesting permission of the CTCDC to experiment with traffic control devices, the design shown in the RTE is inconsistent with the bikeway design criteria in the HDM (see below). The CTCDC, of course, is not the appropriate body for considering changes to the Caltrans bikeway design criteria.

Third, the Streets and Highways Code requires local agencies, without exception, to comply with the minimum safety design criteria for bikeways as established by Caltrans:

SHC 891 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.

The Caltrans bikeway design criteria are contained in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. The proposed project deviates from the HDM bikeway design criteria in several ways, so its implementation would not comply with SHC 891. In particular, Topic 1003.1(5) of the HDM recommends against bike paths adjacent to a street:

HDM Topic 1003.1(5) Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips.

Furthermore, the HDM has no design criteria for separated bikeways, so the RTE is breaking new ground. In particular, the proposed separated bikeway places through bicyclists to the left of left-turning motorists, and right-turning bicyclists to the left of through motorists. This design is not analogous to a bike lane on the right side of the road, where bicyclists can leave the bike lane to avoid right-turn conflicts or to position themselves for a left turn, and right-turning motorists can (and by CVC 21717 must) merge into the bike lane. The Long Beach proposal prevents these movements and obstructs sight lines with parked cars, chevrons, and delineators.

Also, the proposed separated bikeway is not analogous to turning across a sidewalk. Bicyclists travel much faster than pedestrians, and the signals and green pavement markings will tell them that they have right-of-way over turning vehicles, at least at signalized intersections. At unsignalized intersections and driveways, bicyclists will be subject to left hook and drive-out collisions. Notice that the separated bikeway in New York City has no driveways. The Long Beach RTE mentions “a few driveways” on Broadway and 3rd Street, but as shown on the  annotated drawings of the proposed separated bikeways on the next page, there are more than a few.

Traffic turning left into or out of these driveways will conflict with bicyclists. The conflicts may be less severe than those at intersections because vehicle speeds will be lower, but there is also the possibility that a car turning into a driveway and being unable to enter it fully, or leaving a driveway and stopping at the line of parked cars to wait for a gap in traffic, will suddenly block the separated facility, trapping bicyclists who have no escape route. This is a direct result of the attempt to make these “protected bikeways”. The RTE does address these conflicts. In fact, it would likely take a local ordinance to give bicyclists the right-of-way over vehicles entering and leaving driveways.

Also, because the bikeways would be separated from the roadway, drivers and passengers of parked cars will be crossing the bikeways to access the sidewalk, creating a new conflict for bicyclists that did not exist when they rode on the street. Again, it would take a local ordinance to regulate the crossing of the separated bikeway by pedestrians.

In several places, the RTE uses the term “protected bikeway”. This terminology may be ill-advised. While the proposed separated bikeway may protect against certain hazards and may have certain advantages compared to street or sidewalk travel (it would be one-way, wider than a sidewalk, have no pedestrians walking along it and lack street furniture found on sidewalks), higher bicycle speeds and a feeling by bicyclists that they have the right-of-way may exacerbate other hazards. Therefore a representation that it provides protection could expose the city to liability.

Fourth, the RTE proposes bicycle signals at all signalized intersections, but the California Vehicle Code only allows such signals where warrants in the CA MUTCD are met:

CVC 21456.3(e) A bicycle signal may be used only at those locations that meet geometric standards or traffic volume standards, or both, as adopted by the Department of Transportation.

The RTE argues that the current warrants are not relevant to the proposed separated bikeways, but this does not appear to sufficient justification to violate CVC 21456.3(e). Even if the CTCDC decided that it wanted to grant an exception to the bicycle signal warrant, CVC 21456.3 gives that authority to Caltrans, not the CTCDC.

Also the RTE does address the issue of which signals that bicyclists using the roadway are to obey. The Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to observe bicycle signal indications, if present:

CVC 21456.2 (a) Unless otherwise directed by a bicycle signal as provided in Section 21456.3, an operator of a bicycle shall obey the provisions of this article applicable to the driver of a vehicle.
(b) Whenever an official traffic control signal exhibiting different colored bicycle symbols is shown concurrently with official traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights or arrows, an operator of a bicycle facing those traffic control signals shall obey the bicycle signals as provided in Section 21456.3.

This provision presents a quandary for bicyclists who are lawfully riding in the travel lanes. It would seem obvious that such bicyclists should obey the vehicular signals, but if they do, they would be in violation of CVC 21456.2.

Fifth, CABO is concerned that providing separated facilities on Broadway and 3rd Street in the City of Long Beach will influence both bicyclist and motorist acceptance of bicyclists as legitimate users of the road elsewhere in Long Beach and indeed in California. The Streets and Highways Code says that bicyclists are legitimate road users:

SHC 885.2 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
,,,
(f) The bicycle is a legitimate transportation mode on public roads and highways.

Also, the California Vehicle Code says that every bicyclist on a highway (or street) has all the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles:

CVC 21200 (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

The RTE fails to explain how the proposed separated bikeways are consistent with legislative intent concerning the status of bicyclists.

Sixth, the RTE fails to discuss what rules would govern bicyclists and pedestrians on the separated bikeway. Aside from requiring pedestrians to walk on the sidewalk instead of the separated bikeway (see CVC 21966), the California Vehicle Code would leave regulation of bicyclists on the separated bikeway to the City of Long Beach:

CVC 21206. This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code.

Without a local ordinance, for instance, not even one-way operation on the separated bikeway would be enforceable.

Seventh, in at least two places, the letters from the City of Long Beach refer to the proposed separated bikeways as bicycle lanes. The July 20 letter from Mark Christoffels to John Fisher on p. 33 of the amended agenda refers to a “Protected Bicycle Lane,” and the July 23 letter from Mark Christoffels on p. 34 replies to John Fisher’s question (probably asked by e-mail) about “a curb bike lane adjacent to parked vehicles located many feet from the curb.”

The proposed separated bikeways, however, do not meet the requirements for designation as bicycle lanes as described in the Vehicle Code and the Streets and Highways Code, so it would be incorrect to designate them as such.

The California Vehicle Code says that bicycle lanes are part of the roadway and specifies the rules for operation on them:

CVC 21208 (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.

Since the separated bikeway described in the RTE would not be part of the roadway (because it is to the left of a curb or striped buffer), the proposed separated bikeway is not a bicycle lane. Furthermore, the design of the proposed separated bikeway would make it impossible for a bicyclist to leave it to make the permitted movements specified in CVC 21208.

The Streets and Highway Code defines the types of bikeways as follows:

SHC 890.4 As used in this article, “bikeway” means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. For purposes of this article, bikeways shall be categorized as follows:
(a) Class I bikeways, such as a “bike path,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
(b) Class II bikeways, such as a “bike lane,” which provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
(c) Class III bikeways, such as an onstreet or offstreet “bike route,” which provide a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists.

Since the proposed separate bikeways would not be bicycle lanes, CVC 21208 does not apply, meaning that, unlike New York City, bicyclists may lawfully ride in the roadway instead of on the separated bikeway. They might do this to reach destinations on the right side of the street, because they prefer the speed and efficiency of the roadway, because they are keeping up with other traffic, or to avoid hazards. But as shown in the diagram included in the RTE, the travel lanes that are only 10 ft wide. This is much too narrow for a bicyclist and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane, so bicyclists would not be required to ride as far right as practicable (see CVC 21202(a)(3). Therefore cyclists may lawfully control the travel lane (indeed, bicyclists using narrow travel lanes should control the lane for their own safety). Still, it seems plausible that bicyclists who lawfully take one of those lanes may face harassment in the form of shouting, honking, or close passing from motorists who resent sharing the road and believe that cyclists should use the separated bikeway instead. The City of Long Beach has not informed the CTCDC how it will respond to such hostile acts. In particular, it has not said if it will educate bicyclists, motorists, and police officers that bicyclists are fully entitled to use the travel lanes and that it should be expected.

Finally, it is not entirely clear to us that Long Beach has in fact received FHWA approval for this RTE. The letter from Paul Pisano to Mark Christoffels dated June 9 refers to “permission to experiment with bicycle traffic signal indications and green bike lanes across cross streets for separated bikeways.” But it also says “For recordkeeping purposes, we have assigned the following official experimentation number and title: ’9-112 (E) – Green & Shared Lane Markings and Bikes in Lane Symbol Sign – Long Beach, CA.’ ” Green markings accompanying shared lane arrows are the subject of a different RTE, whose number is not given, which is mentioned in the July 20 letter from Mark Christoffels to John Fisher. For that matter, it is not clear to us whether the City of Long Beach is seeking CTCDC approval to experiment with green and shared lane markings and the bikes in lane symbol sign, seeing as these have already been installed.

In conclusion, CABO believes that this RTE is not only incomplete but also fails to acknowledge previous unsuccessful trials, fails to identify the legal issues involved, and fails to recognize the issues of traffic safety, traffic operations, and the status of bicyclists as legitimate users of the road. We urge the CTCDC to reject the subject RTE or, if the CTCDC feels that the RTE may still have merit, refer it to the California Bicycle Advisory Committee for a recommended action.

Sincerely,
Brian DeSousa, CABO Vice President
Robert M. Shanteau, CABO Transportation Engineering Liaison

1. Retrofitting existing traffic actuated signals to either detect bicycles per the new performance standard for new and modified traffic actuated signals <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/09-06.pdf> or, at the very least, to adjust the sensitivity of the detectors and provide Bicycle Detector Symbols <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd/CAMUTCD-Part9.pdf> to tell bicyclists where to stop in order to be detected;

2. Address high-speed dual-destination travel lanes at interchanges and other locations <http://www.vta.org/schedules/bikeways_program.html>;

3. Make sure that all construction projects address bicyclists, per Part 6 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd/CAMUTCD-Part6.pdf>;

4. Apply to the California Traffic Control Devices Committee for permission to use Bikes May Use Full Lane Signs as proposed for the national MUTCD;

5. Install signs informing bicyclists to merge left into the adjacent travel lane where a paved shoulder or bike lane ends;

6. Replace any drain grates that can catch a bicycle wheel and make sure that no new ones are installed;

7. Recognize that the provisions relating to bicycles in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm> are mandatory for the City and that these provisions are not limited to bikeways;

8. Recognize that all traffic control devices for bicyclists must conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd.htm>;

9. Make sure that all pavement surfaces open to bicycle travel meet the minimum requirements in Table 1003.6 of the Highway Design Manual <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/chp1000.pdf>;

10. Maintain roads so that they have a minimum of debris, cracks, etc., that negatively impact bicycle travel;

11. Mandate secure bicycle parking in the zoning code and make sure that the City apply for funds to assist businesses in providing bicycle parking;

12. Review City ordinances and resolutions to make sure that none conflicts with the California Vehicle Code, which is not allowed per CVC 21 <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/genprov/vc21.htm>;

13. Make sure that City policies are consistent with the Equity Statement of the League of American Bicyclists <http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equity_statement_1-05-09.pdf>. In particular, make sure that all 6 E’s are addressed: equality, engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement and evaluation; and

14. Develop educational material for law enforcement officers and judges regarding the rights and duties of cyclists. Here’s the SFPD training video: <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=633000022378125749#> and here is a video on the rights and duties of cyclists that Dan co-produced: <http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4989479/13278120>.

I am cc’ing both CABOforum and the bicycle coordinator for Caltrans because the items listed should really be in any bicycle plan from any jurisdiction in the State.

Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations