BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 529 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 529 (Gatto) As Amended May 3, 2011 Majority vote TRANSPORTATION 13-0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, | | |Jeffries, Achadjian, | |Campos, Davis, Gordon, | | |Blumenfield, Bonilla, | |Hueso, Knight, Norby | | |Buchanan, Furutani, | | | | |Galgiani, Logue, Miller, | | | | |Norby, Portantino, | | | | |Solorio | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROPRIATIONS 16-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | | | |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | | | |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Davis, Gatto, Hall, Hill, | | | | |Lara, Mitchell, Nielsen, | | | | |Norby, Solorio, Wagner | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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, requiring that Caltrans or a local authority round speed limits to the nearest five miles per hour (mph) increment of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic. 2)Authorizes Caltrans or a local authority to round speed limits down to the nearest five mph increment in cases where speeds would normally be rounded up. 3)Prohibits Caltrans or a local authority from further reducing AB 529 Page 2 the speed limit for any reason if they choose to round down, rather than up to the nearest five mph increment. 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. 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 : 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 AB 529 Page 3 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, 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 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 AB 529 Page 4 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 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 5 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 AB 529 Page 5 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 majority of motorists (85%) will drive at a rate of speed that they feel is safe. Also, the Committees heard evidence that 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 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 529 Page 6 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. Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319- 2093 FN: 0000601