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