Re: SANDAG appears to be removing protected bike lane requirements from 2025 Regional Plan

[Jim Baross]

One small but important pedal rotation for cyclists. Now experienced cyclists need to keep involved and vigilant for local project decision making.

Note too that Fed's canceling funding for bikeway projects so as to "not slow down cars" may help shift safety concerns spending toward "program" funding - education, enforcement, promotion.

Jim Baross

CABO President

On Sun, Oct 5, 2025, 6:20 AM Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

Persistence pays off, Steve. And you're now a small-voiced, selfish, professional bicycle racer. Who knew? 😉

We'll done and Thank You!

Karl

On Sun, Oct 5, 2025, 1:40 AM Ron Medak <rme...@gmail.com> wrote:

Great work, Steve!  Thanks for putting in all this time and effort.  It paid off with great results!

Ron

On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 7:50 AM Steve Linke <spl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Update: The draft 2025 Regional Plan was presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors on 9/26. There appeared to have been an organized effort by public commenters to reinstate the NACTO "protected bike lanes" design guide for all streets other than local neighborhood streets.

I believe there were nine total commenters that asked for reinstatement: Ian Hembree (SDCBC), Stephen Vance, Steve Gelb, Ariane, Zach Sturgeon, Jason, David Pierce (Carlsbad), Rachel Graham, and Nicole Burgess. They basically argued that those against the NACTO design guide were a minority of professional racing cyclists, and that the only way less experienced would be safe is with protected bike lanes. The last commenter called those concerned about the lanes "small, selfish voices." There were also a few of us who had submitted written comments thanking staff for removing the design guide.

Staff then argued that such design guides were not necessarily typical for a broad Regional Plan like this, which is more of a 30,000-foot level document. They added that removing the design guide would not affect cities' abilities to build them. The Board seemed satisfied with that explanation and to understand the importance of local jurisdictions having design control. So, no action was taken to restore the NACTO design guide.

In case anybody is interested in watching themselves, the Board meeting video is available HERE, and the public, staff, and Board comments begin around 2:28:55.

Also, I circulated my two papers to every City Councilmember and County Supervisor in all 19 SANDAG jurisdictions, except for the City of San Diego, where I only circulated them to the primary and secondary SANDAG appointees. That is around 100 electeds. I asked that they at least read the Abstract of the Coast Highway collision paper and the Executive Summary of the "white paper" on safety studies before considering considering projects in their jurisdictions or future actions by SANDAG.

On 9/18/2025 7:26 AM, Ron Medak wrote:

Hi Steve,

I reviewed the SANDAG staff report and submitted a comment as you requested.

I was very pleased to see that SANDAG staff recognized the importance of public comments on the question of “protected bikeways” and removed the support of NACTO guidelines in their proposed changes to Appendix K.  It’s been a lot of hard work and you have been instrumental in wading through this in order to help organize opposition to a flawed policy.  

Let’s all submit comments and carry this ball over the goal line to slow down the “protected bikeways” movement and restore safe cycling to our streets!

Best,

Ron

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 3:43 PM Steve Linke <spl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Team:

For background purposes, SANDAG released a draft of its 2025 Regional Plan that was reviewed by their Transportation Committee on 7/18/2025. I submitted a written public comment and provided verbal testimony that noted that the draft plan included text and a figure in Appendix K seemingly requiring that bicycle infrastructure follow "NACTO Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways." This effectively could have required installation of "protected bicycle lanes" to the exclusion of most other bikeway types on all streets other than local neighborhood streets.

I provided draft copies of the documents we worked on: (1) safety study of the south Cardiff cycle track on Highway 101, and (2) white paper describing methodological deficiencies in separated bike lane safety studies being used to promote them. I requested removal of the requirement to follow the NACTO guidance from the plan. I also asked members of this group to submit public comments and contact members of the Transportation Committee, which some of you did.

This Friday, SANDAG staff is providing an update to the Transportation Committee with proposed revisions to the draft 2025 Regional Plan as a result of feedback received (see the attached PDF). I am pleased to report that one of the proposed revisions to the bike project portion of the plan is: "Removal of reference to NACTO guidance from appropriate chapters and Appendix K." I am cautiously optimistic that this is exactly what we were seeking.

I submitted the following public comment for Friday's Transportation Committee meeting, and I encourage you to submit something as well (click on THIS LINK, and there should be a "Leave comment" button in the upper-right; after submitting, you will receive a confirmation email, and you need to click the link in it to finalize your submission): 

Please support staff's proposed removal of references to NACTO bikeway guidance from Appendix K and related chapters. These references appeared to create a requirement that so-called "protected bicycle lanes" (PBLs) be installed on all streets other than local neighborhood streets to the exclusion of other approaches. The research on the safety of PBLs is very inconclusive, and there is strong evidence that they actually decrease bicyclist safety in many contexts. There are many approaches to increase bicyclist safety, which depend on context, and each jurisdiction should be empowered to make local decisions, while SANDAG could perhaps serve the role of helping ensure that transitions between jurisdictions are seamless and safe.

The SANDAG Regional Plan will continue to undergo changes and still has to be approved by the full Board of Directors, so we need to stay vigilant. That said, I think this is very good news!

Best regards,
Steve