Gov. Gavin Newsom may have to step in to resolve a dispute between a state agency and a high-profile lawmaker over “Complete Streets” – a core concept of modern “smart growth” planners that holds streets should provide safe access and use not just to vehicles but to pedestrians and those using other types of transportation.

Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, says Caltrans is trying to sandbag his “Complete Streets” measure, Senate Bill 127. While it doesn’t impose any formal requirements on Caltrans, the bill does require the agency to study adding improvements that accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and transit when fixing an existing road or building a new one.

The bill has passed the state Senate, the Assembly Transportation Committee and, last week, the Assembly Appropriations Committee on largely party-line votes. It seems likely to reach Newsom’s desk after the full Assembly approves it within the next two weeks.

Caltrans sees proposed rule as very costly

But Wiener was unhappy enough with a Caltrans communication on the expected cost of his measure that he depicted the agency as underhanded in a recent interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Caltrans said compliance costs would be so high – $4.5 million per mile of blacktop and more than $1 billion a year – that it would be unable to meet its road improvement obligations that are part of the 2017 law increasing the state’s gasoline tax. The agency also said Wiener’s measure would make it impossible to satisfy the conditions of grants from the Federal Highway Administration.

Wiener wrote two weeks ago to David Kim – secretary of California State Transportation Agency, which oversees Caltrans – that this cost estimate was so “severely inflated” that it “undermines the agency’s credibility.” He said evidence from local governments suggested that SB127’s costs would be from $20,000 to $600,000 per mile, depending on the nature of the project.

Wiener also told the Chronicle that Caltrans appears to think it would be obligated to put up bike lanes on all its projects when in fact the main priority is the “little towns all over California where their main street is a state highway. … That’s where businesses are. That’s where people are walking around. That’s where the school is. Some of them don’t have crosswalks.”

Caltrans an early fan of ‘Complete Streets’

But Caltrans’ history undercuts Wiener’s claim that its high estimates are being driven by outdated views that see roads as being for cars and cars only. Caltrans was one of the first state transportation agencies to embrace “Complete Streets” in 2008. In a 2015 interview with Governing magazine, Malcolm Dougherty – then Caltrans director – touted the agency’s commitment to the concept.

And in 2017, Dougherty used a Caltrans news release to tout the exact sort of “Complete Streets” project – on State Route 62 in Joshua Tree – that Wiener called his priority.

The news release quoted Dougherty as saying the project “used funds from a current construction project to restripe the downtown section of Joshua Tree with bike lanes and diagonal parking in order to more safely move vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists through the downtown business district … [providing] meaningful improvements that create streets which move all users safely and efficiently along and across the roadway.”

Dougherty resigned his Caltrans post last year. His replacement, Caltrans engineer Laurie Berman, is a strong proponent of “Complete Streets” as well. She told a Streetsblog writer in November that while she had worked at Caltrans, her agency had “gone from being heavily criticized for not knowing anything about ‘Complete Streets’ to establishing a Center of Excellence, and providing tools that we can all use, statewide, to move forward together and build facilities that are useful to everyone.”

Berman reports to Kim.

Despite persistent criticism from bike-friendly advocacy groups like the Green Lane Project, Caltrans opted against such sweeping measures. In 2014, however, Democratic officials decided to change that:

“Last year, the state’s legislature passed the Protected Bikeways Act of 2014, removing the de facto blockage and telling Caltrans to create statewide standards for protected bike lanes. Now, with the support of Gov. Jerry Brown and Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty, the agency is following through with such enthusiasm that it’s drawing praise from bikeway design pros.”

When Gov. Brown signed the bill into law, supporters hailed the move as a giant leap in mainstreaming bicycle usage statewide. “This is a game changer for bike infrastructure in California,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, the bill’s sponsor. “Sharing the road is one thing but designing it better is another thing altogether.  By changing our streets, cycling can finally become a realistic transportation option for millions of Californians held back by safety concerns.”

For decades, the expansion of bike lanes has been a project most closely associated in California with Democrats. In addition to making the roads more accessible for mobile nature lovers, bike lanes have long been touted as a way to help decrease reliance on cars — reducing their environmental impact while also likely habituating residents to more often consider using public transportation.

But recently, some Democrat-sponsored initiatives have inspired some head-scratching. In the Assembly, Kansen Chu, D-San Jose, had to take AB 28 back to the drawing board when critics questioned its requirement that cyclists utilize a flashing white light during nighttime hours.

Republican innovation

Typically, Republican interest in bike lane issues has been thought of as largely car-centric. Recently, for instance, Assemblyman Frank Bigelow, R-O’Neals, drafted AB 208, a bill designed to help alleviate driver uncertainty about how to pass cyclists safely.

But in a surprise offering, Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, recently unveiled a plan to expand the modes of transportation eligible for bike lane usage. Soon to receive a committee hearing, AB 604 would authorize stakeboarders with electric motors to ride anywhere bicycles are permitted.

“Electrically-motorized skateboards are a safe and eco-friendly mode of transportation for commuters,” Olsen said in a statement posted to her website, “yet current law bans them from being ridden in California.”

“The ban was implemented in 1977 to keep noisy, gas-powered boards off the streets, but boards built today are quiet, clean and safe to ride. Despite the restriction, manufacturers of these boards continue to invest in our state by developing and building their products here.  The industry is growing world-wide – so it’s time to modernize California law to support this emerging technology.”

Although manufacturers of electrically-powered skateboards quickly voiced their favor, according to Capital Public Radio, cyclists groups seemed ready to consider embracing their would-be fellow travelers. “The California Bicycle Coalition says it wants to ensure bike lanes don’t get too crowded,” CPR reported, “but other than that, it likes the idea.”

Scattered opposition

The popularity of bike lanes — and the push among legislators to promote their use — has been traced back to California roots in the city of Davis. There, in the mid-1960s, city council leaders and University of California-Davis professors created a coalition able to design, approve, and implement a network of lanes now totaling some 150 miles’ worth.

Today, however, bike lanes still haven’t secured unanimous support. “The expansion of bike lanes in Los Angeles can make motorists feel a bit elbowed out,” noted the LA Weekly. “We’ve seen perfectly pristine four-lane roads transformed into two-laners with thick strips of asphalt set aside just for the peddle-power set.” In addition to complaints from motorists, some have voiced more specific objections. “The only people who can use bike lanes are able-bodied and physically fit,” one reader wrote to the Los Angeles Daily News.