Below are comments from the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) on the RRTAC July 19 agenda items relating to the Santa Ana River Trail (SART):

1. First and foremost, we applaud the county’s efforts in reaching out to and working with the cycling community to come up with a SART detour well in advance of the widening of the 91 freeway.  Furthermore, we appreciate the county’s commitment to come with a long term solution that will most likely be more attractive than the original concept of a bikeway adjacent to the freeway.

2. When cyclist access to State Route 91 was severed due to conversion to a freeway in the 1970s, the section of the SART between Gypsum Canyon and Green River was constructed to provide an alternate transportational route for cyclists in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 888. This section reads as follows:

888.  The department shall not construct a state highway as a freeway that will result in the severance or destruction of an existing major route for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless it provides a reasonable, safe, and convenient alternate route or such a route exists.

Since this section of the SART replaced 24/7 road access, 24/7 access MUST be preserved on this section of the SART, irrespective of other policies regulating bikeway hours of operation.  Currently there are posted detour signs posted with limited hours, which is unacceptable.

3. Several signs with a cyclist speed limit of 10 mph have been appearing at various entrances of the SART. Cyclist speed on bikeways is governed under county ordinance as follows:

Sec. 2-5-43. – Bicycles. Unsafe Operation. No person shall operate a bicycle in any manner that endangers any person or animal or at a speed that is greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for other users and the surface, width, and grade of the road or trail, and in no event in excess of ten (10) miles per hour, unless a greater speed is posted.

While a 10 mph speed limit might not be unreasonable in a park or beach setting, it is unnecessarily restrictive on a facility such as the SART, where there are many portions with excellent sightlines where cyclists can travel much faster without endangering themselves or other users. We suggest that the county remove the latter clause in 2-5-43 setting a speed limit. The remainder of the ordinance text already sufficiently addresses the need for cyclists to reduce speed if necessary due to trail conditions and the presence of other users.

In any event, Section 2-5-43 is under “Division 5 – Parks, Beaches, and Recreational Areas” in the county code and only applies to those areas.  This speed limit ordinance should not apply to the section of the SART between Gypsum Canyon and Green River, due to its primary purpose as a transportation facility as it was constructed under the provisions of Streets and Highways Code 888.

4. The SART is popular with bicycle commuters, and daylight-only operating hours would restrict the SART’s usefulness as a commuting facility.  Unlike a wilderness park where a nighttime closure is often needed for the sake of the wildlife, we see no such reason for such a restriction on the SART.

5. Finally, there was a car show at Canyon RV Park at Gypsum Canyon this past Sunday which encroached on the SART passing through that area. Cars were lined up along the SART, with the SART itself used as the walkway for viewing of the cars.  Furthermore, the cars in the show were driving on the SART to enter and exit the area.  We have photos available upon request.

Please circulate these recommended upgrades to advocates (Stephen Box, Joe Linton, Alex Thompson, etc.) working with the City:

SECTION 2: ROAD AND BIKEWAY ENGINEERING FOR BICYCLING

[Goal 2.1: Acknowledge and support bicyclist use of the full existing network of all City streets.]

[Goal 2.2:] Create a continuous [bikeway] network throughout the City.

[Policy 2.0: Ensure that the engineering of all non-freeway roadways without bikeways will support bicycle use.]

Policy 2.1: Develop a grid of bikeways no further than one mile apart through the use of standard and appropriate innovative treatments.

Policy 2.2: Implement the City’s [bikeway] network in accordance with current accepted bikeway standards.

Policy 2.3: Provide amenities and enhancements along City bikeways and other roadways.

Policy 2.4: Reduce hazards on existing [roads and] bikeways.

Policy 2.5: Require a public hearing for the removal of any City [bikeway]. [Editorial note - Bikeway is broader than just bike lanes and paths, and can include bike routes, and bike boulevards, as well as routes with sharrows - DG]

Policy 2.6: Accommodate the needs of bicyclists in the planning, design and construction phases of all citywide transportation projects.

Policy 2.7: Improve the safety of all road users through the implementation of citywide neighborhood traffic calming treatments.

Policy 2.8: Acknowledge the bicycle as a legitimate form of transportation [and bicyclists as full and equal transportation users].

Policy 2.9: Acknowledge the need for recreational bicycling activities.

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

While Irvine has taken advantage of starting with a “clean slate” to build a network of on-street bike lanes and off-street bike paths, this alone does not make a community friendly to cyclists, and CABO believes that more work is needed before Irvine should be given a BFC award.

CABO’s detailed comments are available here:
http://www.cabobike.org/files/CABO_Comments_Irvine_BFC_Application_Spring_2009.pdf

The on-line survey is here – responses are due by Friday, April 17, 2009:
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB228ZU4XDSA2

The BFC scoring criteria are available here:
http://www.cabobike.org/files/BFC_Local_Review_Scoring_Guidelines_2009.pdf

Irvine’s BFC application:
http://www.cabobike.org/files/Irvine_CA_BFC_App_Spring_2009.pdf

http://www.cyclistview.com/danapoint/slide15.htm

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2008/08/dana-point-bike-lane.html

On that blog, the city Public Works director explained:

“Here’s the explanation. The sign belongs to the new median construction contractor who was warning vehicles of the median construction and lane narrowing further up ahead. Coincidentally, the City was also installing new bike lanes on PCH. The bike lane striping subcontractor striped the bike lanes at night and then moved the other contractor’s sign to the location you see it. (Not smart.) The City inspector then noticed the sign and had it moved.”

Actually, that’s quite a reasonable explanation. But then he continues:

“The good news is that the majority of PCH is now striped in Dana Point. The striping was done in concert with the California Association of Bicycling Organizations who reviewed the plans.”

To which CABO replied:

“Thanks to the Public Works director for being on top of the situation – and thanks to him for giving CABO a chance to review the plans, even though we agreed to disagree on some of the plans.”

CABO did indeed review the plans – but we weren’t in agreement with the city. Before they did the striping there was already a wide shoulder which was just fine. Now they’ve got a narrower bike lane by the gutter, which is going to fill up with debris in no time, and gore striping to the left which is technically illegal for cyclists to use or cross. A net loss for cyclists in this writer’s opinion. At least the city agreed to move the bike lane away from the edge of the road at intersections, in order to minimize turning/crossing conflicts.

State Route 241 in Orange County, California, provides the only direct access between the new Portola Springs community in Irvine and the residential/commercial areas of Foothill Ranch. The direct route via SR241 is 1.6 miles and is prohibited to bicyclists, while the shortest legal alternate route for bicyclists is 8.4 miles. This four minute video, created by League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor, Brian DeSousa, makes the case for allowing bicyclist access to this section of SR241.

The video is also available directly on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bDvmtzNDfA – for those who can’t access YouTube, the video is the second from the top in the following page: http://www.cyclistview.com/innertube/

http://laist.com/2008/07/07/road_rage_motorist_vs_cyclists_on_m.php
http://laist.com/2008/07/07/update_on_bicycle_accident.php

Given all the public concerns about cycling on that road, fellow CABO board member Dan Gutierrez and I felt some public education was in order. To that end, we have shot video of the Canyon and created a short (3:49) educational video, entitled: Mandeville Canyon – Motorist/Cyclist Cooperation, for cyclists and motorists, showing safe, legal and cooperative behaviors.  In addition, the Rights and Duties of Cyclists video is also helpful in this context.

By Dan Gutierrez and Brian DeSousa
California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO)

Summary

The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) cycling roadway ban ordinance in Dana Point, California (between Palisades and Camino Capistrano in Capistrano Beach) will not be approved.

At about 12:45 this afternoon (September 20, 2006), the Traffic Safety Subcommittee of the Dana Point City Council decided unanimously to recommend to the full Council that they NOT enact the proposed ordinance banning cyclists, pedestrians, and other human powered transportation users from using the roadway and shoulders on PCH. This action was the result of the subcommittee, which included the Dana Point Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as members, accepting the argument from the cycling community that: a) the roadway design was not the cause of the recent unfortunate injuries and fatalities on PCH. b) forcing fast cyclists onto the narrow pathway was not in the best safety interests of path users and road cyclists.

Background

Pacific Coast Highway between Palisades and Camino Capistrano is a two-lane road with shoulders between a railroad right of way on the ocean side and steep bluffs on the inland side. On April 8, two joggers were severely injured from a hit-and-run driver who had an outstanding warrant for a previous DUI. On May 6, a bicyclist died in a collision with an automobile, for which the bicyclist was found at legal fault.

On May 24, the City Council approved amending the roadway resurfacing project to narrow the travel lanes to 10 feet and the shoulders to 6 feet to make room for a 10-foot wide two-way path on one side of the road separated by K-rail (concrete barriers).

On July 25, another bicyclist died in a crash with an automobile, for which the automobile driver was cited for DUI. As a result of the recent injuries and fatalities, on August 23, the City Council had the first reading of a proposed ordinance to permanently ban cyclists from using the roadway portion of PCH and requiring them to use the sidepath.

Seeing that such a ban, if enacted, could lead to similar bans elsewhere in the state, the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) worked with local cycling club and advocacy organization leaders to devise a strategy to fight the ban. The second reading of the ban ordinance was scheduled for the September 13 City Council meeting, after which it would have become law. Due to numerous letters, faxes, and emails from the cycling community, the reading of the ordinance was pulled from the City Council agenda, and the matter was deferred to the September 20 meeting of the Traffic Subcommittee.

Traffic Subcommittee Meeting Details

The Dana Point Director of Public Works, with whom Brian and I (Dan) met three weeks ago to gather technical data, was instrumental in pre-arranging with the subcommittee to have CABO give a technical PowerPoint presentation with integral video that was longer than the normal three minutes allotted to public speakers, and by also allowing us to present first (actually second after the Public Works director showed a few still photos of his own).

Unfortunately Brian, our CABO area director, whose territory includes Dana Point, was not able to break free from some important work commitments, so I agreed to give the briefing in his place. Brian did a fantastic job of working with all of us to coordinate meetings, shoot video and put together the briefing for the sub-committee. The ten-minute briefing was very well received by the subcommittee.

Three others also spoke at the meeting, Roger Taylor of the Bicycling Association of South Orange County (BASOC), a private citizen who lived in San Clemente (who opposed the ban and asked that the road be restored to its former configuration), and Rock Kendall (the attorney for the Orange County Bicycle Coalition (OCBC) and a citizen of Dana Point). Roger and Rock both gave testimony that was quite complementary to our presentation and helped to show that the cycling community was unanimous in opposing the ban. I believe this along with the fact that the original road cycling ban was NOT brought before the traffic safety subcommittee, which one member publicly stated to her City Council colleagues, made it easy for the subcommittee as a whole to reconsider the idea of mixing fast road cyclists with slow path users.

The same subcommittee member, upon seeing the public works director’s photos, indicated that she rides a bike and would NOT want to use a path so narrow. I could tell by the disturbed look on her face that she agreed with our contention that fast cyclists should not be on a narrow path even before she had a chance to see the dramatic pathway video showing two groups of cyclists at a closing speed of 50 mph. She also started off the committee discussion of the ordinance by giving a nearly verbatim reading of our conclusion slide by stating that cyclists should be able to choose between the road and the path, and the other members added some standard verbal boilerplate which amounted to “me too”. The subcommittee then quickly made a motion to recommend that the council drop the ordinance, seconded it, and made a unanimous voice call to approve the motion.

Another positive action resulting from the decision to NOT enact the road ban was the Director of Public Works’ announcement to the subcommittee members that he would solicit input from CABO to devise improved signage alerting motorists to the presence of cyclists. In a very brief, private conversation with the City Engineer, he liked my suggestion that standard MUTCD signs such as “Road Narrows”, “Watch for Bicyclists”, and “Share the Road” could be used in combination to alert motorists to the fact that even though bike route signs direct path using cyclists to the sidepath, that motorists still understand that road cyclists can and will use the road/shoulder.

Thanks and Conclusions

Many thanks are in order to the CABO board, and those League Cycling Instructors (LCIs) who helped me and Brian shoot some dramatic pathway video that figured prominently in the presentation. These include LCI Serge Issakov, our CABO San Diego area director, and LCIs Phil Thomas & Michael Plumlee of the Southern California Chapter of the MS Society, all of whom were certified as instructors earlier this year by our CABO President and LCI trainer, Jim Baross! In addition Executive Director Don Harvey and attorney Rock Kendall of the OCBC were excellent team players in our efforts to kill the ban, as was Roger Taylor of the BASOC.

Overall, this was an extremely positive result and a model for future CABO advocacy efforts, since we did not have to resort to direct adversarial pressure at the City Council meeting. Instead were able to use methods of education and influence with city staff to re-direct the issue to the traffic safety subcommittee, and as a result were given an invitation to educate the subcommittee. Of course the many thousands of e-mails to the City Council and OCBC threat of legal action also helped to persuade the city to reconsider the roadway ban internally, instead of creating conflict at a City Council meeting.

Thanks again to everyone that helped CABO reaffirm cyclists’ road rights in California.

Link to Video of Path

http://www.cyclistview.com/danapoint/slide15.htm

Recent newspaper articles

Orange County Register, Thursday, September 21:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sports/ocoutdoors/abox/article_1282391.php

Orange County Register, Wednesday, September 20:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/communities/danapoint/article_1280805.php