CABO opposes SB 569. Forward to cyclists.
Jim Baross
The California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO; CABObike.org) strongly opposes SB 569 (Blakespear), as amended June 11. This bill appears to be an overreaction to a local dispute.
SB 569 bill prevents the removal of physical separation on existing bikeways without a unique, extensive, and enormously detailed technical analysis and public process that would, in practice, be prohibitive, or perhaps impossible, to provide. No other roadway design feature enjoys similar protection. Nor is there any requirement for a corresponding technical justification when bikeways (or other design features) are installed. This asymmetry would severely limit the ability of local agencies to modify bikeways after gaining experience with their usage and safety. It might even, no doubt contrary to the author's intent, discourage the provision of bikeways that, once installed, would be effectively locked in permanently.
In addition, the bill's language is confusing and ambiguous, referring to "physical separation" of Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways, when only Class IV bikeways, as defined in Streets and Highways Code §890.4, actually feature physical separation. Class I bikeways are shared-use paths, completely apart from the roadway. Class II bikeways are bike lanes established on the roadway, indicated by a painted stripe or buffer, but not a physical separation. Class III bikeways, or bike routes, are simply roadways designated by signs or markings as particularly suitable for bicyclists. Only Class IV bikeways, also called cycle tracks or separated bikeways, involve physical separation using flexible posts, rigid barriers, or similar devices.
The bill also refers to a Class III bikeway that "is" or "is not" a sharrow. But a Class III bikeway is a designated roadway, and a sharrow, or shared lane marking, is a roadway marking. They are in no way equivalent. And neither involves physical separation.
This bill is a hastily offered solution to a problem that does not exist and could create widespread unintended consequences. For these reasons, CABO must oppose it, and we urge the Transportation Committee to do the same.
petevannuys
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOdir" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cabodir+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cabodir/CAG28zXeShgkvAqt-uBSKvXbfKBTPkJs%3DWO2VZBFYMD0QCBUXfQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Serge Issakov
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/548168962.328206.1781793313520%40cox.net.
Alan Wachtel
Yes, I think it’s critical to not bring attention to relatively minor issues that can be easily tweaked. Focus on the major stuff only.
Serge
On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 7:35 AM petevannuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:
I fear that by responding to these criticisms of the language and revising to remove the ambiguities Blakespear can persuade passage by progressives who don't know the flaws in Cl4s due to a lack of engineering standards. Serge's suggestion would have addressed that issue.
To me, these minor issues demonstrate how sloppily written and poorly thought out the bill is, and how little whoever drafted it (and presumably the author) understand even basic concepts. I'd also contend that this bill isn't the place to argue the merits of Class IV bikeways. Advocates will just point to DIB 89 and DIB 94 (DIBs are considered supplements to the HDM) and the CA MUTCD as already settled standards, and the Legislature isn't going to be interested in adjudicating that dispute. We should focus on how unreasonable the process is. Serge made some good points along those lines that could also be included with the letter.
~ Alan
Karl Rudnick
Jim is correct that the language in this bill is sloppy, referring to separated Class I, II III, and IV bikeways when only Class IVs have a physical barrier and Class Is are separated from traffic by distance, but that is something that can be easily fixed as the bill continues through the legislative process. It is not a reason to oppose the bill. The purpose of the bill is to prevent the removal of bike infrastructure without ensuring an equivalent or better route exists or will be created. Making streets that are safe for all users is a fundamental principle that guides the Bike Coalition's work, and that is why we should support this bill. It's also why the California Bicycle Coalition supports the bill.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advocacy+u...@sdbikecoalition.org.
John Eldon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
bikerick
Alan Wachtel
SB569 has been amended to simply require public hearings for bikeway removal or modification that reduces user safety or mobility https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb569 . So, this bill now cuts both ways. In Santa Cruz portions of Class II bike lanes have either been removed or converted to Class IV bikeways, so if this passes, that could no longer happen without a public hearing. There are only a few bollard "protected" Class IV bikeways so far, but at least one has at least been problematic and many bollards have been removed. So, proponents could argue that such remove reduces safety and demand a public hearing.
Jim and I raised this point with Assembly Transportation Committee staff and the author's office. The committee analysis reveals why the author would be unimpressed:
"The author of this bill provided four examples to the committee where cities have downgraded bikeways (Vista, Culver City) or are considering downgrading them (Encinitas, San Mateo). For example, due to concerns that road narrowing and angled parking increased safety risks and vehicle congestion, including the inability of first responders to expeditiously travel along a corridor, the City of Encinitas recently approved designs that reduce the separation of a bikeway, reverting it from a Class IV to a Class II bikeway. The Vista City Council voted to remove recently installed berms separating bikeways from certain roadways citing safety risks to vehicles and bicyclists though the decision was disputed and not unanimous. Culver City converted a separated bikeway to a shared bike/bus lane. However, the City of San Mateo is no longer considering relocating or replacing a bikeway to restore parking spaces."
The Highway Design Manual declares that "It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II, III, and IV should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application." But despite this assertion and the cities' stated safety concerns, the author seems to consider any modification of a Class IV bikeway to be ipso facto a downgrade that reduces safety or mobility. For the same reason, any modification that creates a Class IV bikeway would automatically be an upgrade that increases safety or mobility. The requirement for a public hearing is only considered to apply in one direction.
~ Alan
Scott Mace
The San Mateo bikeways mentioned are not Class IV at all. Parking was removed from one side of the street in favor of adding a Class 2 bike lane, but parking was preserved on the other side of the street, and a door zone Class 2 bike lane added there. This was done in 2023 with federal funds. The San Mateo city council subsequently considered restoring parking on the side where it was removed, which would have eliminated the bike lane on that side of the street, but also eliminate the DZBL -- which would have been safer by virtually any measure.
That CalBike and SVBC champion the addition of any door zone bike lanes in the last half of the 2020s defies easy explanation.
Scott Mace
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/f9ef64ee-5830-4bf7-ae6b-02c8801f7efe%40gmail.com.
Ron Medak
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/f9ef64ee-5830-4bf7-ae6b-02c8801f7efe%40gmail.com.
Serge Issakov
File under: know your enemy.
Serge
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CA%2BK_zRVAXOYw0F%2BEZAhSyDWodM8%2BVW-B%2B6iC9BZKz-HUyBz69Q%40mail.gmail.com.