BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 529| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 529 Author: Gatto (D), et al. Amended: 6/16/11 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/14/11 AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Harman, Huff, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley, Simitian NO VOTE RECORDED: Rubio SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Speed limits SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of Transportation to revise its regulations so that state and local authorities have greater flexibility in setting speed limits on roads under their jurisdictions. ANALYSIS : Existing California law requires Department of Transportation (Caltrans) after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, to adopt rules and regulations that prescribe uniform standards and specifications for traffic control devices, including the posting of speed limits. Caltrans adopts these rules as the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CONTINUED AB 529 Page 2 (MUTCD), which among other things, prescribes the process for setting speed limits in this state. Speed limits are generally -- in California and elsewhere -- set in accordance with engineering and traffic surveys, which measure prevailing vehicular speeds and establish the limit at or near the 85th percentile (i.e., the speed that 15 percent of motorists exceed). California law uses the 85th percentile to set speed limits, except in cases where: 1. The limit is set in state law, such as the 65 miles per hour (MPH) limit on divided highways, 55 MPH on an undivided highway, 25 MPH in residence districts, and 25 MPH in school zones; or 2. An engineering and traffic survey shows that other safety-related factors suggest a lower speed limit to be appropriate. These safety-related factors are accident data; highway, traffic, and roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver; residential density; and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Based on these safety-related factors, Caltrans regulations permit a local jurisdiction to reduce a speed limit by 5 MPH from the 85th percentile. In cases where the 85th percentile speed is not an increment of 5 MPH, the MUTCD directs a jurisdiction to round to nearest 5 MPH increment. Thus, if the survey shows an 85th percentile speed of 34 MPH, the jurisdiction must set the speed limit at 35 MPH. The jurisdiction may lower that speed limit by 5 MPH (i.e., to 30 MPH) if it identifies and documents a safety-related factor. The jurisdiction cannot, however, lower the speed limit by more than 5 MPH, regardless of additional safety factors. This bill: 1. Requires that Caltrans revise the MUTCD to require Caltrans and local authorities to round speed limits to the nearest 5 MPH of the 85th percentile speed. 2. Allows, in instances where Caltrans or the local authority should round up to reach the nearest 5 MPH, CONTINUED AB 529 Page 3 that Caltrans or the local authority may instead round down but then may not reduce the posted speed limit by a 5 MPH increment for a safety-related factor. (Thus in the example above where the 85th percentile speed is 34 MPH, the authority may set a speed limit of 30 MPH, but may not also further reduce that speed by an additional 5 MPH due to a safety factor). Comments The author notes that prior to 2004, a local government could set speed limits within 5 MPH of the 85th percentile, which allowed local governments to round speed limits down. In 2004, Caltrans changed the wording of the MUTCD so that an authority setting speed limits not prescribed in statute should set those speed limits at the nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th percentile and so that an authority had to provide written demonstration of the safety-related factor to lower that speed limit by an additional 5 MPH due to that factor. In 2009, Caltrans changed its MUTCD again to require, rather than just recommend, that a state or local authority set speed limits to the nearest 5 MPH increment. The author notes that Caltrans made the change from "within" to the "nearest" 5 MPH increment in anticipation of change in the federal rules that guide the process states use to set speed limits. The author notes that the change in the federal rules never came to fruition. Further, the proponents report that local governments have found providing written evidence of a safety-related factor to satisfy the courts that speed limits need to be lowered has proven difficult and costly. The idea, however, of raising speed limits remains onerous to city councils and local authorities. The author introduced this bill to give local governments the authority to round up or down to a 5 MPH increment. Informational hearing . During the 2009-10 legislative session, speed limit bills failed passage in both the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Assembly Transportation Committee. As a result, in the fall of 2009, the two committees held a joint informational hearing entitled, "Setting Speed Limits in California." CONTINUED AB 529 Page 4 The committees heard substantive testimony demonstrating that the majority of motorists (85 percent) will drive at a rate of speed at which they feel safe and that speed limits serve a coordinating function by reducing dispersion in driving speed and the risk of conflict between vehicles. The committees also heard evidence that artificially lowering speed limits below the 85th percentile does not reduce speeds but instead only increases violations and can create a speed trap, a method by which municipalities may raise revenue but which are illegal under California law. Witnesses presented further evidence at the joint hearing that showed increased enforcement, combined with traffic calming measures (center islands, curb extensions, speed humps, etc.), was the most effective method of changing driver behavior and reducing driver speed. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/11) Cities of El Cajon, Glendale, Lemoore, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa Rosa, and Thousand Oaks Glendale Police Department League of California Cities Peace Officers Research Association of California Ventura County Sheriff's Office ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/19/11 AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez CONTINUED AB 529 Page 5 NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Gorell, Grove JJA:kc 6/28/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED