BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 529
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 529 (Gatto)
As Amended August 18, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 30, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CMUTCD), as prescribed.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete reference to the metric equivalent of five miles per
hour (mph).
2)Add two coauthors.
3)Include legislative intent language.
4)Resolve chaptering conflicts with AB 345 (Atkins).
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.
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
AB 529
Page 2
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).
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible fiscal impact to Caltrans and
administrative savings to local agencies in establishing speed
limits.
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 five mph, a jurisdiction
rounds the speed limit to the closest five 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 five 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 five mph,
regardless of additional safety factors. According to Caltrans,
AB 529
Page 3
California is the only state in the nation that allows for a
five-mile reduction in speed limit after rounding to the nearest
five mph increment closest to the 85th percentile.
The 85th percentile was found by empirical studies, to be 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 five 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 five 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 five 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 five mph increment" criteria. In response
to raising speed limits, Caltrans found that many jurisdictions
would then apply the additional five mph reduction without
AB 529
Page 4
appropriate justification. Without justification for lowering
speed limits, speeding tickets were often not upheld in court if
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 five mph, the California MUTCD now
requires it.
2)If the five 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 five 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 of Glendale 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 Transportation and
Housing Committee 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
AB 529
Page 5
majority of motorists (85%) will drive at a rate of speed that
they feel is safe. Also, the Committees 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, 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 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 have amended 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, allows local
authorities to consider residential density and bicycle and
pedestrian safety as additional factors in ETS conducted for
purposes of setting speed limits.
AB 529
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093
FN: 0002011