AB 1976

[bike...@att.net]

Hi: Thanks for the legislative discussion at the General Meeting. I agree with the expressed sentiment that AB 1976, which eliminates community input on bicycle facilities, is flawed and that CABO should oppose it. I also wrote my own personal letter as follows and submitted it on the California Legislature Position Letter Portal https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/faces/submitnote.xhtml

 

As a bicycle advocate for some 50 years, I strongly urge you to reject AB 1976 in its current form. This bill has a fatal flaw in that it assumes that a project listed in an approved plan is a perfect project that requires no further public input. The flaw in this assumption is that there is a vast difference between how a bicycle project is characterized in an approved plan verses how it is specifically designed. I have often participated in community input meetings to comment on the actual designs of proposed projects that have been listed in approved plans. The devil is in the details. I have voluntarily spent countless hours reviewing bicycle project designs and discovering revisions that could be made to improve the projects, sometimes significantly. I take pride that at least some of my recommendations have been accepted and the resultant projects have been made better by my involvement. I request that such opportunity not be curtailed by AB 1976.

By the very nature of the preparation process for general plans, circulation elements, regional transportation plans, and the like, bicycle projects are typically described in general terms, such as a bikeway on Street X from point Y to Z. It is only after a jurisdiction decides to proceed with such a project that specifics such as the class of bikeway, the width, striping, signing, and other elements are conceptualized. Only at this point, can the public really gauge how effective the project will be. And though designs are prepared by professional engineers, those of us that will be bicycling through these projects often have intimate knowledge that can help refine and better the draft designs. Even the input of those who might be critical of such projects could be useful in shaping their final design.

Unfortunately, there are examples of bicycle projects that have had to be redone after construction that proved to have fatal flaws. Not all such flaws can be discovered and rectified through community input meetings ahead of time. But, the potential for them to occur is increased if the public is shut out of the review process. Again, please do not pass AB 1976 in a form that allows this to happen.

Thank you,

Rick Hyman

Santa Cruz