BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 529 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 27, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Cameron Smyth, Chair AB 529 (Gatto) - As Amended: March 24, 2011 SUBJECT : Vehicles: speed limits: downward speed zoning. SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Transportation to revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to allow local jurisdictions to round down speed limits, as specified. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (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 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. EXISTING LAW : 1)States that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. 2)Allows a local authority by ordinance to determine and declare a prima facie speed limit as specified, which is found to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, in specified circumstances. 3)Establishes prima facie speed limits for specified circumstances and types of roadways, as follows: AB 529 Page 2 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. 1)Requires Caltrans, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, to adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices, including, but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway, and stock crossings signs, as specified. 2)Requires, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, Caltrans to consult with and consider the recommendations of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, prior to increasing or decreasing the speed limit, and allows a city council or board of supervisors to conduct a public hearing on the proposed increase or decrease. 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). 4)Defines "speed trap" to mean either of the following: a) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance; and, b) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance as specified, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit AB 529 Page 3 involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects (this does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone). FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)The process for setting speed limits is guided by federal standards contained in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Caltrans is responsible for maintaining the guidance and standards in the California MUTCD and receives input on changes from the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC), an advisory body convened by Caltrans and made up of primarily public works directors, engineers, and traffic engineers representing local jurisdictions. The California MUTCD must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration as being in "substantial conformance" with the national MUTCD. 2)As of January 21, 2010, Caltrans has revised the California MUTCD, to include the federal Highway Administration's 2003 MUTCD Revision 2 dated December 21, 2007, to prescribe uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. This action was taken pursuant to the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 21400 and the recommendation of the CTCDC. 3)A speed limit is generally set at or near the 85th percentile of the prevailing speed, meaning the speed that is exceeded by 15% of motorists, as measured by an engineering and traffic survey. 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 engineering and traffic survey shows an 85th percentile speed of 34 mph, the speed limit will be set at 35 mph. The 85th percentile was found by empirical studies to be a safe and prudent speed at which 85% of motorists drive. Studies have shown that setting speed limit levels lower than the 85th percentile make lawbreakers out of otherwise law-abiding citizens and can engender disrespect for the law. The current CMUTCD specifies that a jurisdiction may lower that speed limit by 5 mph (from 35 to 30 mph) if AB 529 Page 4 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 mph reduction in speed limit after rounding to the nearest 5 mph increment closest to the 85th percentile. 4)In 1996, speed limits were set at the first 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile, a process that put downward pressure on posted speed limits. At that point, the speed limit could then be lowered an additional 5 mph if an engineering judgment determined that the traffic safety needs of the community indicated 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. 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 the presiding official found that the speed limit was set below the 85th percentile. 5)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 follow: a) Rather than guiding local jurisdictions to set the speed limits at the nearest 5 mph, the CMUTCD now requires it; and, b) If the 5 mph reduction is applied, the engineering and traffic survey shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the reduced speed limited and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. 6)Speed traps are defined in current law contained in the Vehicle Code. The Legislature has declared a strong public policy against the use of speed traps, to the extent that AB 529 Page 5 citations issued where a speed trap is found to exist are likely to be dismissed, especially if radar enforcement methods are used. Traffic engineers and local jurisdictions have been encouraged by the Legislature and the courts toward setting and maintaining local speed limits in that speed limits are very carefully set to avoid creating a speed trap. 7)This bill requires Caltrans to revise the CMUTCD, as it read on January 1, 2012, to allow a local authority to round speed limits down to within 10 kilometers per hour or 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic in cases in which the speed would otherwise be rounded up, except that in those cases the local authority may not petition Caltrans to reduce the speed limit by an additional 10 km/5 mph. The bill additionally specifies that if the manual requires the local authority to round down the speed limit, the local authority may petition the department for an additional 10 km/5 mph decrease. The distinction here is the difference between the CMUTCD's adopted policy change of requiring a local jurisdiction to set the speed limit at the nearest 5 mph increment versus the provisions of this bill, which allows for a local authority to round speed limits down to the 5 mph increment. This bill additionally allows jurisdictions to round down without justification, which is currently required by the provisions of the CMUTCD. 8)According to the author, these recent changes to the CMUTCD will likely require speed limit increases on 44% of local streets and roads in the City of Glendale, prompting the need for the bill. According to the City of Glendale, many of their major streets are residential in character, with a high level of pedestrian and bicycle activity. Driving at unsafe speeds has been a longstanding concern in Glendale. Between 2005 and 2010, 17 to 20 % of all collisions were caused by vehicles traveling at an unsafe speed, and as the speed of a vehicle involved in a collision increases, so does the potential for serious injury. Glendale believes that AB 529 takes an important step toward improving traffic safety by returning speed survey methodology to what was used in 2004, and will go a long way in promoting traffic safety by balancing the needs of drivers with those of the community. AB 529 Page 6 9)Support arguments: According to the League of California Cities, cities can currently round down Ýspeed limits] only when there are safety needs as identified by an engineering judgment, a policy that does not allow a city to decide what is actually in the best interest of its community. This bill would return some decision-making authority to cities to address their unique local conditions. Opposition arguments: This bill allows local governments to round down to the nearest 5 mph increment without justification to be provided for the rounding down of the speed limit as is currently required. As well, there is already a process in place to update the CMUTCD with the input of local officials who sit on the CTCDC. The Committee may wish to consider whether legislation trumping the existing process is necessary. 10)This bill was heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 11, 2011, and passed with a 13-0 vote. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Opposition City of Glendale Police Department None on file City of Santa Rosa League of CA Cities Peace Officers Research Association of CA (PORAC) Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958