AB 954 directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to prepare a proposal and select sites for a pilot establishing branded, numbered, and signed "bicycle highways" in two major metropolitan areas in different regions. The bill defines program attributes — dedicated bicycle use, intermittent entrances/exits, trips of five miles or longer, and design to support speeds up to 25 mph — and makes the proposal eligible for programming in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The bill forces concrete planning and funding steps: Caltrans must include the proposal in the draft Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) by January 1, 2030, complete the studies needed for STIP programming, and report back to legislative policy committees by July 1, 2031. The statutory authority expires (becomes inoperative) in July 2035 and is repealed January 1, 2036, making this an explicitly time‑limited, testable program.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 954 requires Caltrans to prepare a site‑selection proposal for a pilot of branded bicycle highways in two separate major metro areas, to be included in the draft ITIP by January 1, 2030. The bill directs Caltrans to perform the studies and other actions necessary to have the pilot programmed in the STIP, and to report status and recommendations to the Legislature by July 1, 2031.
Who It Affects
The program targets Caltrans, regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs), and the California Transportation Commission because STIP programming and site selection require interagency coordination; it also affects cities and counties that would host routes, and cyclists who would use higher‑speed interregional bike corridors. Project funding would flow through the STIP, implicating state and potentially federal funds.
Why It Matters
This is one of the first statutory pushes in California to create branded, numbered interregional bicycle corridors and to treat them as STIP‑eligible projects, not merely local bike lanes. The bill changes planning priorities by embedding bicycle highways in interregional planning and creates a short, enforceable timeline for study, programming, and legislative reporting.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 954 creates a short, focused process to test whether dedicated bicycle highways — signed, numbered, branded routes meant for longer, faster bicycle trips — can be planned, funded and operated at an interregional scale in California. The bill instructs Caltrans to draft a proposal that selects sites in two major metropolitan areas located in different regions; the selection must consider regional support, connectivity to existing routes, and the potential to increase active transportation.
The bill is specific about the intended character of these facilities: they must be restricted to bicyclists, include intermittent entrances and exits rather than frequent access points, serve trips of five miles or longer, and support higher‑speed bicycle travel up to 25 miles per hour. Caltrans must include the proposal in the draft ITIP by January 1, 2030 and take the necessary programming steps — for example, producing a project study report or a major investment study — so the pilot can be placed in the STIP for funding and delivery.AB 954 also instructs Caltrans to assess integrating bicycle highways into strategic interregional corridors within the interregional transportation strategic plan, aligning the pilot with broader state planning goals.
After the pilot is programmed and initial work has progressed, Caltrans must report to relevant legislative policy committees by July 1, 2031 with status and recommendations about expanding bicycle highway networks. The author included a sunset provision making the section inoperative in mid‑2035 and repealed at the start of 2036, so the statute is explicitly temporary and aimed at producing learnings rather than creating an open‑ended program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires Caltrans to propose branded, numbered, and signed bicycle highway networks in two major metropolitan areas in different regions.
Pilot networks must be for bicyclists only, have intermittent entrances/exits, serve trips of five miles or longer, and support speeds up to 25 mph.
Caltrans must include the proposal in the draft ITIP by January 1, 2030 and perform actions (for example, a project study report or major investment study) to make the pilot STIP‑programmable.
Caltrans must report to the Legislature on the pilot’s status and recommendations for additional networks by July 1, 2031.
The statutory authority for the pilot becomes inoperative July 1, 2035 and is repealed January 1, 2036.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Require assessment of bicycle highways in the interregional strategic plan
The bill amends Section 14524.4 to add that, to the extent feasible and consistent with the California Transportation Plan, Caltrans must assess incorporating bicycle highways into strategic interregional corridors within the interregional transportation strategic plan (ITSP). Practically, this forces planners to consider bicycle highways alongside roads and transit in interregional corridor analyses rather than treating longer bicycle facilities solely as local projects.
Pilot design parameters and site selection criteria
Subdivision (a) directs Caltrans to prepare a site‑selection proposal for a pilot of branded bicycle highways in two major metro areas in different regions. The statute defines functional parameters (bicyclist‑only, intermittent access, trips ≥5 miles, design speeds up to 25 mph) and requires Caltrans to select sites based on regional support, connectivity to other bike routes, and potential to maximize active transportation benefits. Those selection criteria push Caltrans to coordinate with regional agencies and weigh both political backing and network value.
Programming requirement and studies for STIP inclusion
Subdivision (b) imposes a firm deadline: Caltrans must include the pilot proposal in the draft ITIP by January 1, 2030 and undertake whatever steps are necessary to have it programmed in the STIP, explicitly mentioning project study reports and major investment studies. The bill also makes this proposal eligible for ITIP inclusion notwithstanding certain other ITIP statutory restrictions, clearing a path for STIP funding without some normal procedural barriers.
Reporting obligation and sunset
Subdivision (c) requires Caltrans to report to relevant legislative policy committees by July 1, 2031 on pilot status and recommendations for expansion. Subdivision (d) states the report must comply with general reporting rules and sets a statutory end date: the section becomes inoperative July 1, 2035 and repealed January 1, 2036. That limited timeframe signals the Legislature intends this as a time‑boxed pilot with an evaluation period.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commuter and intercity cyclists: They gain access to longer, higher‑speed, dedicated routes designed for trips of five miles or more, potentially improving travel time, comfort, and safety for medium‑distance cycling.
- Regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs): RTPAs that back a proposed route gain leverage to secure STIP programming and state study resources, raising the profile of regional active‑transportation priorities.
- Cities and counties along selected corridors: Host jurisdictions can expect increased active‑transportation connectivity, potential local economic activity around nodes, and state funding for infrastructure that might otherwise be locally financed.
Who Bears the Cost
- Caltrans and planning staff: The department must prepare the proposal, perform project study or major investment studies, coordinate across jurisdictions, and manage programming and initial delivery steps, all requiring staff time and technical resources.
- Other STIP projects and sponsors: Programming the pilot in the STIP will use limited STIP capacity and could crowd out other state‑programmed projects unless additional funds are found or priorities shift.
- Local agencies and maintenance entities: Cities, counties, and special districts hosting infrastructure will likely face responsibilities for right‑of‑way, local coordination, construction interfaces, operations, and long‑term maintenance obligations and costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize a visible, branded, interregional bicycle network now — using scarce STIP capacity and a time‑limited pilot — versus investing more diffusely in local, incremental bicycle improvements and long‑term maintenance; the bill advances one strategy without spelling out the design, safety, or funding rules needed to ensure the networks are durable, safe, and equitable.
AB 954 sets up a clear test but leaves key implementation details unspecified, creating real operational and policy questions. The statute defines functional characteristics of a bicycle highway but does not provide design standards, modal definitions (for example, how different classes of e‑bikes are treated), or safety and accessibility rules.
Those omissions mean outcomes will depend heavily on how Caltrans and local partners interpret speed targets, separation from pedestrians, ADA accommodation, and signage/branding standards.
The bill also channels limited STIP capacity toward a pilot and waives some procedural eligibility concerns by making the proposal explicitly eligible for the ITIP. That creates a funding trade‑off: using STIP for branded bicycle corridors may displace roadway or transit projects, and the law offers no scoring or metrics to justify tradeoffs.
Finally, the pilot’s explicit sunset limits statutory obligations but risks undercutting long‑term continuity for expensive infrastructure unless funding and maintenance responsibilities are resolved during the pilot window.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.