BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 529
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 529 (Gatto) - As Amended: March 24, 2011
SUBJECT : Vehicles: speed limits
SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CMUTCD), as prescribed. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires that Caltrans revise the CMUTCD, as it read on
January 12, 2012, to allow local authorities to round speed
limits down to within 5 miles per hour (mph) of the 85th
percentile in cases where speeds of free-flowing traffic where
speeds would otherwise be rounded up.
2)Prohibits a local authority from petitioning Caltrans to
reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph in cases where
speed limits were rounded down to within 5 mph of the 85th
percentile when they would have otherwise been rounded up.
3)Specifies that if the CMUTCD requires a local authority to
round down the speed limit, the local authority may petition
Caltrans for an additional 5 mph decrease as is currently
provided for.
4)Makes related, clarifying amendments.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes prima facie speed limits for specified
circumstances and types of roadways, as follows:
a) 15 mph when traversing a railway grade crossing, when
crossing an intersection if the view is unclear or
obstructed, or when driving in an alley; and,
b) 25 mph on any highway, other than a state highway, that
is in any business district or residence district, as
defined, in a school zone, or in an area with facilities
primarily used by senior citizens.
AB 529
Page 2
2)Permits Caltrans and local agencies to change prima facie
speed limits if done so in accordance with an engineering and
traffic survey (ETS). An ETS measures prevailing vehicular
speeds and safety-related factors including accident records
and highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily
apparent to the driver. Local authorities may also consider
such factors as pedestrian and bicyclist safety and
residential density when conducting an ETS.
3)Makes it unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a
sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or the
Caltrans-approved supplement to that manual (i.e., the
CMUTCD).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : In California, as in many other states in the
country, posted speed limits are used to regulate speed on
streets and highways. Speed limits enhance safety in two ways.
First, by establishing an upper bound on allowable speeds, speed
limits help to reduce both the probability and severity of
collisions. Second, speed limits serve a coordinating function
such that the limit is set at a speed at which the majority of
drivers tend to drive, thereby reducing dispersion in driving
speed and the risk of conflict with another vehicle. Speed
limits, when appropriately set; also provide a basis for speed
enforcement.
A speed limit is generally set at or near the 85th percentile of
the prevailing speed (i.e., the speed which is exceeded by 15%
of motorists) as measured by an ETS. In cases where the 85th
percentile speed is not an increment of 5 mph, a jurisdiction
rounds the speed limit to the closest 5 mph increment. For
example, if the survey shows an 85th percentile speed of 34 mph,
the speed limit will be set at 35 mph. The CMUTCD specifies
that a jurisdiction may lower that speed limit by 5 mph (i.e.,
to 30 mph in the example) if safety-related factors suggest that
a lower speed is warranted. The jurisdiction cannot, however,
lower the speed limit by more than 5 mph, regardless of
additional safety factors. According to Caltrans, California is
the only state in the nation that allows for a 5-mile reduction
in speed limit after rounding to the nearest 5 mph increment
AB 529
Page 3
closest to the 85th percentile.
The 85th percentile was found by empirical studies, to be the
speed the safe and prudent speed at which 85% of motorists
drive. Studies have shown that setting speed limits levels
lower than the 85th percentile make lawbreakers out of otherwise
law-abiding citizens and can engender disrespect for the law.
The process for setting speed limits is guided by federal
standards contained in the National MUTCD. Any change to the
process in California must be approved by the Federal Highway
Administration as being "in substantial compliance" with the
National MUTCD. Caltrans is responsible for maintaining the
guidance and standards in the CMUTCD and receives input on
changes to the manual from the California Traffic Control
Devices Committee (CTCDC), an advisory body convened by Caltrans
and comprised primarily of public works directors and engineers
and traffic engineers representing local jurisdictions.
The process for setting speed limits has experienced modest
changes since 1996. In 1996, speed limits were set at the first
five mph increment below the 85th percentile, a process that put
downward pressure on posted speed limits. The speed limit could
then be lowered an additional 5 mph if engineering judgment
determines that the traffic safety needs of the community
indicates a need for a further reduction.
In 2004, California revised its process to conform more closely
to federal standards by providing that the speed limit should be
set at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile.
The distinction between "within" and "nearest" holds great
weight : "Nearest" indicates that the speed limit may be rounded
above or below. For example, if the 85th percentile is 34 mph,
the nearest 5 mph increment and thus the posted speed limit
would be 35 mph. "Within," on the other hand, allows local
jurisdictions with an 85th percentile speed of 34 mph to round
down and post the speed limit at 30 mph.
After the 2004 change, many speed limits were being raised after
applying the "nearest 5 mph increment" criteria. In response to
raising speed limits, Caltrans found that many jurisdictions
would then apply the additional 5 mph reduction without
appropriate justification. Without justification for lowering
speed limits, speeding tickets were often not upheld in court if
AB 529
Page 4
the presiding official found that the speed limit was set below
the 85th percentile.
For the past two years, CTCDC has evaluated whether further
changes to the CMUTCD regarding the process for setting speed
limits were warranted. On May 15, 2009, Caltrans adopted two
policy changes for setting speed limits, as follows:
1)Rather than guiding local jurisdictions to set the speed
limits at the nearest 5 mph, the California MUTCD now requires
it.
2)If the 5 mph reduction is applied, the ETS shall document in
writing the conditions and justification for the reduced speed
limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer.
The setting of an unreasonable speed limit is called a speed
trap. The Legislature has declared a strong public policy
against the use of speed traps, to the extent that citations
issued where a speed trap is found to exist, are likely to be
dismissed, particularly if radar enforcement methods are used.
Traffic engineers and local jurisdictions have been encouraged
by the Legislature and the courts towards setting and
maintaining local speed limits such that speed limits are set
carefully, as justified by appropriate factors, to avoid
creating a speed trap.
According to the author, recent changes in the CMUTCD (i.e.,
changes requiring jurisdiction to round to the nearest 5 mph
increment from the 85th percentile) will likely require speed
limits increases on 44% of local streets and roads in the City
of Glendale.
The city has raised similar concerns in the past. In fact, it
was at least partially in response to the City of Glendale's
earlier attempt to statutorily change the way speed limits are
set via AB 766 (Krekorian) of 2009 that the Assembly
Transportation Committee and the Senate Committee on
Transportation and Housing held a joint hearing on speed limits
on October 28, 2009. Substantive testimony was presented at the
hearing which demonstrated that the rate at which a driver
travels is independent of posted speed limits and that the
majority of motorists (85%) will drive at a rate of speed that
they feel is safe. Also, the committee heard evidence that
AB 529
Page 5
artificially lowing speed limits below the 85th percentile does
not reduce speeds but, instead, only increases violations and
can create a speed trap, which is viewed by some to be a method
by which municipalities raise revenue.
Further evidence was presented at the joint hearing that showed
that increased enforcement combined with traffic calming
measures (center islands, curb extensions, speed humps) was the
most effective method of changing driver behavior and reducing
driver speed.
Previous legislation:
SB 570 (Maldonado) of 2009 would have established a prima facie
speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) for any roadway where the
residential density is eight residential units or more fronting
the street. That bill died in the Senate Governmental
Organization Committee.
AB 564 (Portantino) of 2009, would amend the definition of a
"local street or road," under the speed trap law, for the City
of Pasadena, to mean that it is either included in the latest
maps submitted to the federal highway Administration (FHWA) or
one that is not wider than 40 feet, longer than one-half mile,
or more than one lane in each direction. That bill passed the
Assembly Transportation Committee, 8-3 on May 4, 2009, but was
subsequently gutted and amended to deal with use of monies in
the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund.
AB 766 (Krekorian) of 2009 would have allowed a local city or
county to retain a prima facie speed limit on any street, other
than a state highway, if it makes a finding after a public
hearing and determines that a higher speed limit is not
appropriate and does not promote safety. That bill died in the
Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 2767 (Jackson), Chapter 45, Statutes of 2000, allowed local
authorities to consider residential density and bicycle and
pedestrian safety as additional factors in ETS conducted for
purposes of setting speed limits.
Double referred : This bill has also been referred to the
Committee on Local Government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 529
Page 6
Support
City of Santa Rosa
City of Glendale
Opposition
Amalgamated Transit Union
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093