Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 5 of 6)

777

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
locations
• Stopping and corner sign distance restrictions, including intersections and entrance ramps
Justification for 24/7 reductions in speed limit due to a roadway condition not included in the list above must be documented on the Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Determination form.

The need for a reduced speed limit within a construction TTC zone must be determined during the project development process. For all projects, the Project Engineer must complete the Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Determination form. This form documents that the project:
• Complies with the policy for 10 mph speed limit reduction within the construction work zone.
• Is exempt from speed limit reduction because of authorized exceptions listed on the form based on project conditions.
• Is granted an exception by the Deputy District Directors for Traffic Operations and Construction if a speed limit reduction of more than 10 mph is required for the project.
• Is granted an exception by the Deputy District Directors for Traffic Operations and Construction from the policy of reducing the speed limit based on the reasons given for the exception.
• Requires construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7 based on one of the roadway conditions listed on the form.
• Is granted an exception by the Deputy District Directors for Traffic Operations and Construction for a construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7 based on a roadway condition that is not listed on the form.

A copy of the completed form should be provided to the CHP and/or local law enforcement notifying them of the reduced speed limits.

The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must include the type of speed reduction either temporary speed limit reduction or 24/7 construction work zone speed limit reduction, recommended posted speed, public outreach campaign and Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement (COZEEP).

For implementation of construction work zone speed limit reduction in a contract use standard special provision and appropriate standard plans. If standard plans for speed limit reduction are not appropriate for conditions, such as detours, then details of sign placement and traffic control devices must be shown on the traffic handling plans for the project. Refer to the 2018 Revised Standard Plan Sheets T18 through T21 for details on traffic control systems for work zone speed limit reduction. Refer to 2018 Standard Special Provisions Section 12- Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 23 778

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

4.02C(12) “Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction” on implementation of speed limit reduction in construction projects.

TTC zone speed limits should be reduced in stages if a reduction of 15 mph or more is required. When the overall reduction is 15 mph or more, the first stage of the sequence should be a reduction of 10 mph, the final stage reduction should be 10 mph or 5 mph, as necessary. If the construction work zone speed limit reduction is more than 10 mph, edit Standard Special Provisions Section 12-4.02C(12) “Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction” to insert route number, existing speed limit, and reduced speed limit.

For example, if the project falls within an established 55 mph zone, and a 40 mph speed limit is necessary, it may be posted only if the approaching speed limit is lowered in two stages (first to a 45 mph speed limit, and then a 40 mph speed limit).

The lowest value allowed for a reduced work zone speed limit is 25 mph. Refer to CVC Section 22362.

When lowering speed limits on freeways that normally are posted at 70 mph regulatory speed limit, consider the amount of truck traffic and number of lanes available for use. If only one lane is available for use, the speed limit should be reduced to 55 mph, the maximum speed allowed for trucks.

Consider increasing supplemental funds for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) for additional CHP units to enforce the construction work zone speed limit reduction within the speed limit reduction zone. Refer Section 2-215 of the Caltrans Construction Manual for guidelines on implementing COZEEP in construction work zone. If construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7 is required, some additional patrolling may be required when work is not actively in progress, so that the traveling public reduces speed.

Temporary Signs shall be removed or covered immediately following completion of the work or change in conditions for which they were installed.

Page 24 ends

779

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Figure 2-5: Temporary Traffic Control Regulatory Signs
G20-5aP R2-1
R2-12 W3-5

2.3.3 Request for Maintenance Regulatory Temporary Traffic Control Speed Zones For maintenance work zones, reducing the speed limit by 10 mph is optional as maintenance work zones are of shorter duration, usually lasting from an hour to several days.

Evaluate the benefits of reducing the speed limit against the risk of worker exposure to place the speed limit reduction signage. Consider speed limit reduction in work zones where it has been determined to have a beneficial impact, such as areas with a high frequency of close calls or incidents where excessive speed was a factor.

When a maintenance region manager, superintendent or supervisor desires work zone speed limit reduction of more than 10 mph, the maintenance manager, superintendent or supervisor should submit a “Request for Temporary Traffic Control Speed Zone” memo (refer Appendix B.1.1) with the work plans or description to the Traffic Operations Division (District Traffic Branch Chief or County or City equivalent) for review and processing. The District Traffic Operations representative shall respond, via memo, to the request for the TTC speed zone.

2.3.4 Signs Installed by the Contractor
Even though a contractor may furnish and/or install speed limit signs on a construction project, the resident engineer should verify that the contractor does not erect signs of their own design and/or speed limits of their choosing. Except under the immediate direction of the resident engineer, the contractor has no authority over the design or location of speed limit signs.

The resident engineer should consult District Traffic Operations if any questions arise.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

2.4 School Speed Zones
CVC Section 22352 establishes the prima facie speed limit at 25 mph in a school zone when children are present. 25 mph speed limits should be used for school zones when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway, and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. Reduced speed limits for school zones are in effect when children are present. “When Children Are Present” is defined in CVC Section 22352 as “while children are going to or leaving the school, during school hours or during the noon recess period.” The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.

Pedestrian crossing activity is the primary basis for reduced school speed zones.

However, irregular traffic and other pedestrian movements when children are being dropped off and picked up from school must be considered.

2.4.1 Planning for School Areas
Agencies should make certain that all applicable traffic control devices are utilized to prevent conflicts in school areas. Maintaining contact with school officials can help agencies become aware of proposed building programs or other issues at an early stage so that solutions will be more promptly implemented. When proposed building plans are known, it may be possible to offer suggestions on access points that will prevent future conflicts. Also the installation of needed safety and traffic control devices can be scheduled to be in place when needed.

An E&TS should be conducted to determine the location of the reduced school speed limit and to determine which streets will be affected. Spot speed surveys are not necessary to reduce the speed limit near schools. The location and types of other traffic control devices need to be determined as well.

2.4.2 School Zones under Local Authority
A local authority may determine upon the basis of an E&TS that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour established by CVC Section 22352 is not reasonable or safe. The local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, as justified by the survey.

Such ordinance or resolution shall not be effective until the erection of appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by Caltrans and the installation of appropriate signs. School zone speed limits of 20 or 15 mph may only be enacted under conditions specified in CVC Section 22358.4 and may only be applied when there is a maximum of one lane in each direction and the prima facie speed limit is 30 mph or less immediately before and after the school zone.

Page 26 ends

781

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

2.4.3 Signs for School Areas
See CA MUTCD Part 7, Traffic Controls for School Areas for a complete discussion of school area traffic control and CA MUTCD Part 4 for Flashing Beacons in School Areas. CA MUTCD figures 7B-5(CA), 7B-102(CA), 7B-103(CA), and 7B-104(CA) show examples of how speed limit signs for school zones are set.

Figure 2-6: Signs for School Areas
S4-3P S3-1 S4-5 S5-3 R2-1

2.4.4 Intervals of Operation
Generally, the speed limit indicated on the school sign assembly is in effect only while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The intervals of operation of any flashing beacons on the school zone speed limit assembly may be extended or revised for school events as mutually agreed upon by the school district and the entity responsible for the flashing beacons’ operation. In this case, the flashing beacons should only be operated when there is an increase in vehicular activity and pedestrian traffic in and around the roadway associated with the school event.

The “WHEN FLASHING” and specific time period messages shall not be used in school areas in California, as they are not supported by CVC 22352. Hence, the Specific Time Period Plaque (S4-1P), “WHEN FLASHING” (S4-4P) and “SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT 20 WHEN FLASHING” (S5-1) signs shall not be used in California.

The “WHEN FLASHING” and specific time period messages are misleading because they suggest that the speed limit is applicable only when the flashing beacons are in operation or during the specified time period. The prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is in effect based on the presence of children per CVC 22352, not on the flashing beacons’ operation or during a specific time period.

The non-use of “WHEN FLASHING” message also addresses the situation when children are present but the flashing beacons are inoperative for any reason. The absence of “WHEN FLASHING” message does not alter the warrants, use, or effectiveness of a flashing yellow beacon.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

2.5 Reduced Truck Speed Limit on Descending Grades
Highways with lengthy descending grades with a recorded history or complaints of runaway larger vehicles may be a candidate location for posting truck speed limit signs for trucks travelling downhill. Avoid posting signs on descending grades of less than 1 mile since the deceleration of vehicles due to braking action generally provides sufficient control on these short descending grades. A truck is defined in CVC Section 22406 (a) as a motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle.

Vehicles which meet this description and have a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more are subject to a truck speed limit.

To establish a downhill truck speed limit, a strip map is needed to show the length and gradient of the highway’s vertical alignment. Speed data of vehicles with three axles or more, collected on the downgrade, is used to establish the 85th percentile for truck speeds.

Speed data for truck speed limits should be presented on the same form used for other speed surveys. An analysis of reported collisions involving trucks using these descending grade road sections is needed. Determine the 85th percentile speed and the 10 mph pace. The 10 mph pace is the 10 mph increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. The truck speed limit should be set at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile, to indicate a reasonable speed at which trucks should travel down the grade. The CVC does not address zoning for truck speed on downgrades. Downgrade zoning for trucks does not fall under the speed trap section of the CVC Section 40802 when set by E&TS.

The agency responsible for the highway shall issue a standard speed zone order that documents the need and location of the lower truck speed limit. Posting of the regulation will be by placement of a standard Speed Limit (R2-1) sign with a TRUCK (M4-4) plate. Truck speed zones should be evaluated every ten years, but this is not a requirement for using radar for speed enforcement.

A standard End Speed Limit (R3 (CA)) sign with TRUCK (M4-4) plate shall be posted at the end of the truck speed zone where appropriate.

Page 28 ends

783

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Figure 2-7: Truck Plaque with Speed Limit Signs
M4-4 M4-4
R2-1 R3 (CA)

2.6 Private Roads
The CA MUTCD standard and Caltrans standards and specifications for traffic control devices shall not be applicable to privately owned and maintained roads or commercial establishments, unless the particular city or county enacts an ordinance or resolution to this effect. Refer to CVC Sections 21100, 21100.1, 21107, 21107.5, 21107.6, and 21107.7.

Private roads are roads separated from access by the general public by physical barriers and do not have to meet the speed zone criteria of this manual.

Indian Reservation Roads are public roads that provide access to, from and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, and restricted Indian land. Tribal governments have control over these roads and have authority to set and enforce speed limits on their roads.

Privately maintained roads that are open to the general public are subject to the conditions of this manual. Publicly maintained roads found in parks and universities are subject to the conditions of this manual.

Privately owned parking areas, including the driving aisles within those parking areas, that are privately owned shall not be considered to be “open to public travel” for purposes of CA MUTCD applicability. All publicly owned parking areas and only those privately owned parking areas where the particular city or county has enacted a resolution to this effect, including the driving aisles within those parking areas shall be subject to CA MUTCD applicability.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

2.7 Variable Speed Limits
On occasion, the establishment of variable speed limits may facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic on a freeway segment. Caltrans determines, based upon an E&TS, whether to implement variable speed limits. By CVC 22355, Caltrans may erect, regulate, and control signs upon the state highway designed to permit display of different speeds at various times of the day or night. These signs need not conform to Standard Plans and Specifications but shall be of sufficient size and clarity to give sufficient notice to drivers of applicable speed limit(s).

2.8 Setting a Speed Limit at 70 mph
Section 22356 of the CVC addresses increasing freeway speeds to 70 mph. When an E&TS demonstrates that a speed greater than 65 mph on an existing facility subject to a 65 mph maximum speed limit would facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and would be reasonable and safe, the speed limit may be raised to 70 mph. On a new facility constructed to appropriate design standards, Caltrans may declare a maximum speed limit of 70 mph. Before posting a 70 mph speed limit, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) must agree with the proposed posting and provide approval in writing. See Chapter 4, section 4.4 regarding placement of R2-1 and R6- 3(CA) and R6-4(CA) signs giving maximum statewide speed limits for various types of vehicles where speeds greater than 55 mph are posted.

2.9 Special Weather Conditions
Speeds will normally be selected and posted for good weather conditions and dry pavement. California law, however, also provides for the posting of speeds for snow or ice conditions on a highway. Refer to CVC Section 22350 and 22363.

Caltrans, with respect to state highways, or a local authority with respect to highways under its jurisdiction, may determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 40, 35, 30, or 25 miles per hour, whichever is most appropriate and is reasonable and safe based on the prevailing snow or ice conditions upon such highway or any portion thereof. Signs may be placed and removed as needed as snow or ice conditions vary.

Page 30 ends

785

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Figure 2-8: Chain Control Assemblies
R76 (CA) R76 (CA), R78 (CA) R2-1, R80-1(CA)
R79 (CA)
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 31 786

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Chapter 3 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEYS
(E&TS)

3.1 Overview
In order for the court systems and the public to accept and respect the responsible public agencies’ posting and enforcement of posted speed limits, an E&TS must incorporate sound, repeatable methods conforming to the CVC and engineering principles. The following information assists public agencies with conducting and implementing an E&TS meeting these purposes.

3.1.1 Scope of Survey
In accordance with CVC Section 627, an E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing free flow speeds in the proposed roadway segment, a review of the collision history, and a review of roadside conditions. Residential and business density as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety should also be considered. The E&TS should document compliance with the conditions of CVC Section 627 and identify conditions not readily apparent to a motorist.

3.1.2 Components of an E&TS
The documentation of the findings of the survey consists of three elements:

1. A Strip Map with a schematic plan drawing of the roadway showing the results of the speed measurements, collision data, and related physical information.

2. Justification memo, a discussion of the roadway characteristics, 85th percentile speeds, collision data, non-apparent conditions, and a summary with a recommended speed limit. See appendix B.8.

3. Order or ordinance documenting the speed limit. An E&TS may have any number of speed zones on the strip map, but each speed zone should have a separate justification and order.

3.2 Data Collection and Analysis

3.2.1 Equipment
Proper equipment is essential for an accurate measurement of the free flow state of vehicles, including:
• An unmarked, plain colored vehicle. If the vehicle has amber flashing lights, the lights must be off and inside the vehicle so as to not affect the speed of traffic. No other special equipment can be attached to the outside of the vehicle. Marked police vehicles cannot be used.
• Portable Radar or Lidar. The accuracy of the equipment should be verified in a manner to assure the engineer vehicle speeds are being accurately measured to within 3 mph.

Page 32 ends

787
California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
• Radar or Lidar equipment must be calibrated in the same manner as the equipment used by law enforcement personnel. Equipment should be calibrated at a minimum of every three years.
• Pneumatic hoses or other roadway automated equipment can only be used to assist trained personnel. As automated equipment cannot determine which vehicles are in a state of free flow, trained personnel must eliminate the recordings of non-free flow vehicles from the automated equipment’s data.
• Basic equipment training, understanding of the cosine effect, and knowledge of which cars to use for the Speed Survey Sheet are required.

Figure 3-1: The Cosine Effect
Measured Speed (Vm) is slower than Actual Speed (VO):

𝑉𝑉𝑂𝑂 =
𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚
cos 𝛼𝛼
LOS
d
α

The cosine effect shows that the speed measured by the radar (or other device), Vm, can be an inaccurate measurement of the vehicle’s actual speed, Vo, depending on the angle, α, between the radar’s line of sight (LOS) and the vehicle’s direction of travel. One can minimize the difference between Vm and Vo by minimizing the perpendicular distance, d, between the radar and the vehicle’s direction of travel.

3.2.2 Location of Speed Measurements
Locations to take speed measurements should be chosen to provide true free flow speeds.

Avoid uncharacteristic locations of the represented segment. Other areas to avoid include intersections with signal or stop control, roadway narrowing for a short period, intersections and driveways with high turning/cross movements, and any location affected by emergency personnel, roadwork or law enforcement presence. Since radar detectors are readily available and in use, a check for radar emitting devices (many stores use radar detection to open doors) may be necessary to find locations with true free flow speeds. In order to obtain true free flow speeds, any radar feedback signs, photo enforcement signs, cameras or other automated systems designed to affect or monitor the speed of traffic should be turned off and covered or removed at least two weeks prior to the day of speed data collection.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

3.2.3 Selecting Vehicles Under Free Flow Conditions
The intent of the speed measurements is to determine the actual speed of unimpeded traffic. Free flow is a condition of traffic where a vehicle’s speed is not influenced by anything other than the roadway geometry. Some of the conditions that exist in a free flow state are:
• Minimum 5 second gap between vehicles. The Highway Capacity Manual defines delay as a percentage of vehicle headways less than or equal to 5 seconds. • Appropriate distance for the vehicle to reach a steady velocity not influenced by start-up or slow-down speeds due to traffic signals, stop signs, or other traffic control devices.
• Not influenced by slow vehicles such as trucks or buses. • Not influenced by enforcement or the perception of enforcement, construction or lane closures, inclement weather or special event traffic.

3.2.4 Measuring Vehicle Speeds
Prevailing speeds collected during the spot speed survey are used to determine the 85th percentile speed. It is important to obtain an accurate measurement of free flow traffic speed to provide consistency for law enforcement and the court system. Guidelines for a spot speed survey include:
• Choose survey locations as necessary to represent the roadside development, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and other physical conditions for the entire posted speed limit area.
• In urban areas, survey locations should be at 0.25 mile intervals or as necessary to ensure accurate representation of the speed patterns. Choose locations midway between traffic signals or 0.2 miles away from signals, whichever is less. If signals are so close together that free flow is never reached, the prima facie speed limits for a business or residential district may apply.
• In rural areas, survey locations may be further than 0.25 miles apart, as long as the roadside development, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and other physical conditions remain consistent. It may be only necessary to survey at the beginning, middle and end of a zone.
• Record prevailing speeds where the speeds are representative of the entire speed zone section. If speeds vary on a given route, more than one speed zone section is required.
• Measure the prevailing speed of 100 vehicles in each location. • Do not combine data from multiple locations to reach 100 vehicles. • Read speeds directly from the radar device or other electronic speed measuring devices.
• Measure prevailing speeds in both directions for all types of roadways. • Take speed measurements during any day time period with free flowing traffic. • Take speed measurements under dry conditions and clear visibility. • The surveyor and equipment cannot be in a location that will affect the traffic speeds before the speed is measured. An unmarked car is necessary to avoid the

Page 34 ends

789

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
appearance of law enforcement. The appearance of law enforcement will alter the speed of vehicles and free flow conditions will not exist. • In order for the sample to represent the actual traffic flow, the minimum sample should be 100 vehicles in each survey. In no case should the sample contain less than 50 vehicles. On very low volume roadways, use of devices capable of accurately distinguishing and measuring the speed of free flow traffic may be appropriate.
• Do not identify speeds of vehicles with more than two axles or towing a trailer. • Do not take speed measurements with radar or Lidar in areas affected by changes in the roadway horizontal or vertical alignments (i.e., curves or steep grades).

3.2.5 Recording Measured Speeds
Recording the prevailing speeds of traffic is a critical part of the E&TS and is used to determine the 85th percentile speed. Law enforcement, the public, and other engineers must be able to review the data after it was taken to verify its integrity. See Appendix Sections A.1.1 - A.1.3 for suggested forms.

Speed Zone Survey Sheets should include the following:
• Printed name of recorder.
• Location (city, street name, post mile).
• Weather.
• Posted speed.
• Divided or undivided.
• Begin time / end time.
• Roadside development.
• Conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
• Summary of total number of free-flow vehicles used.
• Clear and easily understandable graphic representation of the 85th percentile speed.

The speed zone survey sheet will provide a graphical representation of the vehicle speeds surveyed.

3.2.6 Calculating 85th Percentile Speed
If 100 vehicle speeds are plotted, the 85th percentile speed is determined by looking at the speed of the 15th vehicle down from the top speed. Fifteen percent of the vehicles are travelling faster than this speed, and eighty five percent are travelling at or below this speed. If less than 100 vehicles are counted, the 85th percentile speed must be determined by calculating 85 percent of the number of vehicles counted and determining the vehicle’s 85th percentile speed. For example if 70 vehicles were counted, 0.85 x 70 = 59.5. The speed of vehicle 60 represents the 85th percentile. Examples are shown in Appendix A on the Speed Zone Survey Sheet examples.

3.2.7 Collision Analysis
Collision data should be reported as actual collisions per million vehicle miles (acc/mvm) and average acc/mvm. Actual rates should use the most recent three years available or the most Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 35 790

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
recent data available for the latest roadway reconfiguration. Average rates should be based on the type of roadway being studied.

Statewide collision rates are found in a Caltrans Table B. According to Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Guidelines, Table B is an on-demand report that summarizes collisions and volume data, and calculates collision rates for a given time period for a highway segment, ramp or intersection location. The District traffic operations personnel can run Table B reports. An example of a Table B report is included in Appendix A.4.

Higher than average collision rates need investigation to determine if they are related to the posted speed. Collision reports indicating speeding as a cause should be investigated to determine if CVC Section 22350 Basic Speed Law (also referred to as driving too fast for conditions) is the cited section. This section does not necessarily indicate that the posted speed limit was violated; many collisions occur at intersections and in stop and go traffic at speeds much lower than the posted limit.

Summarize the collision history and review for speed related issues. TASAS Selective Record Retrieval (TSAR) reports are on-demand reports list the details of collision records and a summary of the results. A TSAR report may facilitate collision analysis. A TSAR report example is included in Appendix Section A.4. Using collision rates to justify a change of speed limits requires an analysis showing that the proposed speed change would reduce the collision rate or severity. Collision rates may not be used to lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph if the speed limit has already been lowered 5 mph for non-apparent conditions. Other appropriate counter measures should also be considered to reduce collision rates.

3.2.8 Evaluating Existing Conditions
The speed zone segment should be reviewed to determine local land uses, traffic control devices, number of lanes, striping details, existing posted signs and existing posted speed limits.

Traffic should be observed to determine areas of conflicts, high pedestrian/bicycle movements and other driver behaviors.

Conditions not readily apparent to the motorist is a condition which, if the motorist were aware, they would adjust their speed accordingly. Motorists are aware of the width, curvature, grade, and surface conditions. CVC Section 22358.5 specifically prohibits downward speed zoning for these conditions and any other conditions readily apparent to the driver. Special events, construction, or congestion are also apparent when present. The basic speed law CVC Section 22350 is sufficient regulation for such conditions. If readily apparent conditions are of great concern, advisory speed signs may be posted for specific roadway conditions. See Section 2 for a full discussion on advisory speed signs.

Non-apparent conditions include those high volume traffic generators (vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian) not visible and access points that are not visible to the motorist. Warning signs can be placed for such conditions however, this is not always adequate. Every attempt should be made to make the motorist aware of non-apparent conditions before a decision is made to lower

Page 36 ends

791

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
the speed limit. Non-apparent conditions may not be used to lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph if the speed limit is also being lowered for a higher than average collision rate.

3.3 Developing Strip Maps

3.3.1 Strip Map Example
See Appendix Section A.2 for an example of a strip map showing the roadway under review for a particular E&TS.
85th percentile speeds are recorded on the strip map at speed survey locations. As the goal is to measure free flow traffic, not every point on a roadway can be used to measure the 85th percentile speeds. However, the points where the data is taken are connected by lines on the strip map to graphically represent the progression of speed. These lines do not indicate actual 85th percentile speeds.

3.3.2 Scale for Strip Maps
The scale is left at the engineer’s discretion and is meant to be schematic in nature rather than show a high level of detail of the roadway features. An aerial photograph can be used with speed zone details shown as an overlay.

3.3.3 Information to Include on the Strip Map
• A north arrow.
• Post Mile or other distance measurement.
• Limits of the proposed speed zones for each direction of travel. • Roads and road names, number and width of lanes.
• Appropriate notations showing type of roadside zoning and development, such as “scattered business,” “solid residential,” etc. Schools adjacent to the highway are shown, but other buildings need not be plotted unless they are a factor in the speed recommendation or the point of termination of a speed zone. • Important traffic generators, such as factories, shopping centers/malls etc. • Uncontrolled marked pedestrian crossings including school crosswalks . • Railroad crossings – show number of tracks.
• Collision rates for the zones involved.
• Average daily traffic volume.
• Location of traffic signals, signs, striping details, and markings. Signs should include all regulatory signs, advisory curve warning signs, and school signs. Guide signs may be shown to indicate city limits.
• Distinction between divided and undivided sections of the roadway. • Areas where CVC 22352 Prima Facie by Statute speeds are being used. • Plotted 85th percentile and lower limit of pace speeds at locations taken showing speed profile.
• City and County jurisdictional boundaries.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

3.4 Speed Zone Design

3.4.1 Zone Length
The length of any section of roadway set for a particular speed zone should be as long as possible and consistent with changes in roadway conditions, roadside development, and land use.

Speed zone or speed limit changes need to be coordinated with changes in roadway conditions, roadside development, and land use. Speed zones of less than 0.5 miles should be avoided.

Create separate speed zones at City, County or other jurisdictional boundaries with a consistent speed limit across the boundary.

Speed zone transitions can be accomplished in one of two ways. Speed limits can be stepped down in 5 or 10 mph increments or changed abruptly with “speed zone ahead” warnings.

If stepped down, the speed limit changes should be supported by the E&TS and be set near the 85th percentile speed. If the transition is accomplished by changing abruptly from highway speed to city speed, “speed zone ahead” place warning signs in advance of the change. Table 2C-4 in the CA MUTCD should be used to determine the minimum distance for placing warning signs advance of the lower speed zone (see Appendix A.3). Upward speed transitions are signed in accordance with the downward zoning on the opposing traffic lanes. Either speeds are increased incrementally to match the downward increments or signed “end speed zone” followed by the posted highway speed limit.

Example 1:

Based on observed 85th percentile speeds, a speed zone on a two-lane conventional highway through a town starts with a 55 mph zone (length 0.6 miles), followed by a 45 mph zone (length 0.5 miles), and then by a 35 mph zone (length 0.5 miles).

Example 2:

A divided freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 mph approaches a City with cross traffic and signalized intersections. The 85th percentile speeds within the City indicate a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Since it may be very difficult to establish 0.5 miles or longer speed zones with 5-10 mph reductions based on observed speeds on this approach, a “40 Zone Ahead” sign should be installed at an appropriate distance before the first “Speed Limit 40” sign.

See Appendix Section A.7 for general illustrations.

3.4.2 Directional Differences
The 85th percentile speeds may differ considerably by direction at some locations. Such conditions are usually caused by relatively heavy development on one side of the road. Next to the development, motorists will tend to drive slower.

On divided highways with independent alignments, the zone speeds should conform to the 85th percentile speed in each direction, even though this may require zoning for different speeds in opposite directions.

Page 38 ends

793

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
On undivided roadways, and divided roadways without independent alignments, the zones in opposite directions should be the same for clarity for the driver and law enforcement purposes. If there is a difference between the 85th percentile speeds of 5 mph or more in the opposing directions, the data from both directions can be averaged to obtain one 85th percentile or the higher 85th percentile may be used to set the limit.

3.4.3 Variation from the 85th Percentile
Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed. Speed limits higher than the 85th percentile are not generally considered reasonable and prudent. Speed limits below the 85th percentile do not ordinarily facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and require constant enforcement to maintain compliance. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile conform to the consensus of motorists of the reasonable and prudent speed, rather than the judgment of one or a few individuals. The majority of drivers comply with the basic speed law.

Speed limits set at or near the 85th percentile provide law enforcement officers with a limit to cite drivers who do not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent. Further studies such as FHWA-RD-92-084 and FHWA-RD-98-154 show that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile generally results in an increase in collision rates.

3.4.4 Applying a 5 Mile Per Hour Reduction
When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, rounding as standard mathematics directs.

Under some circumstances the posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed.

If a 5 mph reduction is justified, the E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.

The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Section 22358.

The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria:

1. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 37 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.

2. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 33 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
CVC 21400 allows for setting the speed limit at the 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile even if mathematical rounding would require the speed to be posted above the 85th percentile. If this option is used, then the additional 5 mph reduction cannot be used. In effect, this law allows an engineer to round down to the nearest increment of the 85th instead of up. The engineer cannot then take a further reduction.

When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified; however, speed limits shall not be lowered more than 5mph less than the nearest increment to the 85th percentile speed. The factors justifying a reduction below the nearest increment to the 85th percentile speed are the same factors mentioned above. Whenever such factors are considered to establish the speed limit, they should be documented on the speed zone survey or the accompanying engineering report. Generally, collision history is the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

3.4.5 Trial Runs
A “trial run” is a drive through the speed zoned section of a roadway at the chosen speed(s) confirming if the speed(s) are appropriate for the area. After the 85th percentile speeds and zone lengths have been selected, several trial runs may be made through the area in both directions driving at the selected speeds. This should show any irregularities in the zoning which may need adjustment.

Page 40 ends

795

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Chapter 4 LOCATION OF REGULATORY SPEED

LIMIT SIGNS

4.1 Speed Limit: R2-1
The R2-1 sign shall be used to give notice of the speed limit except as provided under Prima Facie Speed Limits in CVC Section 22352. R2-1 speed limit signs shall be placed at the beginning of all restricted speed zones. Where speed zones are longer than one mile, intermediate signs may be placed at approximate one mile intervals. Additional signs within the same zone should be considered at major intersections or at locations where significant volumes of traffic enter the highway. For three or more lanes in each direction, two signs may be used:
one in the median and one on the shoulder, facing the same direction (dual installation).

Freeways with a speed limit of 65 mph or 70 mph shall be posted as follows:
• R2-1 signs shall be installed at the segment entrance to the right of traffic off the right shoulder.
• R2-1 signs shall also be installed off of the right shoulder, throughout the segment, at a maximum of 25 mile intervals. The 25 mile interval may be modified to include locations following entrance ramps.
• R4-3 signs may be installed at locations where there is a tendency of the motorists to drive in the left-hand lane(s) below the normal speed of traffic. • R6-3(CA) sign shall be installed approximately 750 feet following each R2-1 sign, both at the beginning and throughout each 65 or 70 mph segment. • The R6-4(CA) sign shall be installed approximately 750 feet following each R6- 3(CA) sign.
• Signs shall be placed in protected locations.
• R2-1 signs with the appropriate number for the next speed limit shall be installed off of the right shoulder at the end of the 65/70 mph segment.

Freeway segments with an approved 55 mph speed limit shall be posted as follows:
• The beginning of the segment shall be posted with an R2-1 sign installed on the right shoulder and in the median if it is of sufficient width to permit sign maintenance without lane closures.
• Subsequent signs should then be posted on the right shoulder, on approximate three mile intervals, with no more than three interchanges between signs. At the end of the segment, an R2-1 sign with the appropriate number for the next speed limit should be posted on the right shoulder.

Conventional highways with 55 mph to 65 mph speed limits should be posted as follows:
• The beginning of the segment shall be posted with an R2-1 sign installed on the right shoulder.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
• Subsequent signs should then be posted on approximate five to ten mile intervals and immediately after locations where significant volumes of traffic enter the segment. At the end of the segment, an R2-1 sign with the appropriate number for the next speed limit should be posted on the right shoulder.

See Appendix Section A.7 for illustrations of regulatory sign placement. Pavement markings with appropriate numerals (see CA MUTCD Section 3B.19) may be used to supplement speed limit signs.

Figure 4-1: Speed Limit Sign
R2-1

4.2 Speed Zone Ahead: R2-4 (CA)
The R2-4(CA) sign should be used to inform the motorist of a reduced speed zone. The R2-4(CA) sign shall always be followed by a R2-1 sign installed at the beginning of the zone where the reduced speed limit applies.

Figure 4-2: Reduced Speed Zone Ahead
R2-4(CA)

Page 42 ends

797

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

4.3 End Speed Limit: R3 (CA)
The R3 (CA) signs may be placed at the end of reduced speed zones. The R3 (CA) sign shall only be used to mark the end of a speed zone. When used, an R2-1 should be placed within a reasonable distance of the R3 (CA), based on engineering judgment, to remind drivers of the speed limit of the facility. The R3 (CA) sign shall not be used for a change in speed limits within a reduced zone. The R3 (CA) sign may be used with the TRUCK (M4-4) plaque to mark the end of truck speed zones on descending grades. An illustration of the locations of regulatory speed limit signs within a transition zone is provided in Appendix A.8.

Figure 4-3: End Speed Limit
R3(CA)

4.4 Speed Limit, Trucks, & All Vehicles When Towing: R2-1, R6-3 (CA) and R6-4 (CA)
The R2-1 and R6-3(CA) and R6-4(CA) signs giving maximum statewide speed limits for various types of vehicles shall be installed on all State highways near the points of entrance into California. These signs should be placed in a location to be most effectively viewed by the approaching motorists.

When used, the R6-3(CA) sign shall be installed approximately 750 ft following each R2- 1 sign. The R6-4(CA) sign shall be installed approximately 750 ft following the R6-3(CA) sign.

The R6-3(CA) and R6-4(CA) signs should be placed on highway segments where speeds in excess of 55 mph are permitted. Refer to CVC Section 22406 for types of vehicles subject to the 55 mph maximum speed limit.

Figure 4-4: Trucks 3 Axles or More and All Vehicles When Towing Signs R6-3(CA) R6-4(CA)
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 43 798

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

4.5 Special Enforcement Signs

4.5.1 Speed Enforced By Radar: R48 (CA)
The R48 (CA) sign may be used where the California Highway Patrol has received authority to use radar and requests such sign. Where radar enforcement is in effect, one sign should be used in each direction at the beginning of the segment of roadway, and at intervening major route intersections. The R48 (CA) sign is a stand-alone sign intended to alert motorists that speed is enforced by radar on a particular segment of roadway.

Figure 4-5: Speed Enforced By Radar
R48 (CA)

4.5.2 Radar Enforced: R48-1(CA)
The R48-1(CA) sign may be used in combination with the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign on any roadway where law enforcement has the authority to use radar. Where radar enforcement is in effect, the R48-1(CA) sign should be placed below the R2-1 sign at the beginning of the segment of roadway and at intervening major intersections.

Figure 4-6: Radar Enforced
R48-1(CA)

4.5.3 Speed Enforced By Aircraft: R48-2(CA)
The R48-2(CA) sign may be placed, when requested by the California Highway Patrol, on sections of highway regularly patrolled by aircraft. The R48-2(CA) sign shall be used for both directions of travel. The R48-2(CA) sign should be placed at the beginning of the section and spaced at 25 mile intervals.

Figure 4-7: Speed Enforced By Aircraft
R48-2(CA)

Page 44 ends

799

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Chapter 5 RENEWAL OF E&TS’S

5.1 Overview
According to CVC Section 40802, an E&TS is valid for five years. However, under specific conditions stated in CVC Section 40802, the E&TS may be valid for seven or ten years.

Once a speed zone is established at a statutory maximum speed limit (CVC Section 22349) or higher, no further studies are required as the CVC requires an E&TS for speed zone reductions only. The completion date for the E&TS is when the approving authority signs the E&TS or orders. This date does not have to match the date the strip map was stamped or the date of the justification memo accompanying the E&TS.

5.2 Frequency of Rechecks
According to CVC Section 40802, “Speed Traps,” are sections of highway for which the speed limit has not been justified by an E&TS within five years, and the enforcement of the speed limit involves either timing vehicles between a set distance of roadway or using radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects.

The renewal time may be extended to seven years when using radar and all of the following criteria are met:
• The citing officer has successfully completed a minimum of 24 hours of certified radar operator course training.
• The radar used to measure the speed meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within three years of the alleged violation.

The renewal time may be extended to seven years when using laser or other electronic devices (other than radar) and all of the following criteria are met:
• The citing officer has successfully completed a minimum of 24 hours of certified operator course training.
• The citing officer has successfully completed a minimum of 2 hours of additional approved certified training.
• The device used to measure the speed meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within three years of the alleged violation.

The renewal time provision for an E&TS may be extended to ten years if a registered engineer determines that all of the above conditions are met and no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including major changes in adjacent property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

5.3 Procedure for 7 to 10 Year Extensions
After a registered engineer determines an existing E&TS qualifies for an extension from seven to ten years, the engineer should write a memo to amend the existing E&TS and transmit to the local court and law enforcement agencies, describing the conditions that have led to the decision. The engineer should also send a letter notifying the local authorities involved, including the CHP area commander, Public Works Director, City Engineer etc. A sample of such memos and letters are provided in Appendix B.9.

5.4 Renewal before Expiration
The 85th percentile speed through a highway section could be impacted by physical changes to the roadway, such as increasing or reducing the number of travel lanes, installing traffic signals, altering roadside development, and significant changes in traffic volume. When these changes have occurred, the existing E&TS may need to be reassessed before the renewal period is expired.

For example, a section of a two-lane conventional highway was upgraded to a divided, four-lane highway. This section is about 2 miles long, is preceded by a reduced speed zone (less than 55 mph), and followed by a 55 mph two-lane conventional highway section. In this situation, Section 22349 (a) of CVC applies, stating “except as provided in Section 22356, no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour”.

However, before posting this new speed limit, the engineer should conduct a speed survey to confirm the prior 55 mph speed limit is no longer appropriate. The engineer should write a memo to the District Director, describing the conditions that have led to the decision of raising the speed limit. The District Director should then issue an order authorizing the increased speed limit. The engineer should then send a letter notifying the local authorities involved, including the CHP area commander, Public Works Director, City Engineer etc.

Page 46 ends

801

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Chapter 6 SPEED ZONE APPROVAL AND

DISTRIBUTION

6.1 Overview
Once the draft E&TS is ready, law enforcement and other affected engineering agencies should be contacted to discuss the findings. If the findings indicate a need to raise or lower the posted speed, a letter should be sent to local officials to allow for a public hearing. If there is no proposed change to the speed limit, notification and the new E&TS is sent to law enforcement and courts. Section 6.2 details the approval process.

6.1.1 Differences between State and Local Jurisdictions An E&TS is necessary for non State highways except those covered by Prima Facie Speed Limits in CVC Section 22352. Reductions from 65 mph need to be done by local ordinance based on the results of the E&TS. Local governments are not subject to the local hearing provisions of CVC Section 22354.5.

6.2 Approval Process

6.2.1 Consultation with local California Highway Patrol and Other Agencies Whenever Caltrans determines the need to raise or lower a speed limit, it must consult the CHP and take into consideration their recommendations according to CVC Section 22354.5.

Local law enforcement and city and county engineers should also be contacted to discuss the findings of the E&TS. These discussions are valuable to gain local insight regarding nonapparent conditions, collision data, and level of opposition to change. In addition, these discussions can help in locating the beginning and ending of individual zones. Driving the section of road proposed for a speed change with local personnel is a good method to understand local concerns at each particular section of a zone.

6.2.2 Local Government Notification and Public Hearing
CVC Section 22354.5 allows a public hearing to be conducted by a city council or county board of supervisors, when Caltrans proposes changing a speed limit on a State highway, and that Caltrans shall take into consideration the results of the meeting. A letter should be mailed to the local city to notify them of the changes under consideration. It is important that the letter inform the city or county of the locations of the proposed changes, the opportunity to hold a hearing, that the hearing will be run by the city or county and that Caltrans would like to attend to answer questions. The letter should provide the option to hold or not hold a public meeting and a date after which Caltrans will proceed if no reply is received. See sample letter in Appendix Section B.2.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

6.2.3 Attend Public Hearing
The public hearing should be attended by Caltrans representative with knowledge of speed zoning practices and the particular zones being discussed. This person needs to be able to tactfully answer questions and describe the benefits of proper speed zoning.

6.2.4 Reassess Proposed Speed Limit Change
Once the public hearing is concluded the results should be considered and any new concerns or non apparent conditions investigated. Collision data and non-apparent conditions may be used to justify a 5 mph reduction. However, once the first reduction is taken, additional conditions do not justify additional reductions. Public and political opinions are not reasons to change the results of an E&TS and cannot be used as justification to reduce a speed limit.

6.2.5 Prepare New Speed Zone Orders
Orders are written when Caltrans reduces the speed limit from 55 mph for undivided highways or 65 mph for divided highways. Orders must be rewritten and signed for every new or updated E&TS when the speed limit is set below the statutory or prima facie maximum.

Orders should be rewritten at least every 10 years, or when an E&TS must be redone. See sample order in Appendix B.3.1. If the proposed zone is 70 mph, CHP concurrence is required per CVC Section 22356. See sample order in Appendix B.3.2. Similarly, CVC Section 22358 requires local jurisdictions to pass an ordinance for speed zones established by E&TS.

6.2.6 Determine Need for New Advisory Speed Signing
Higher speed limits may result in a need to re-evaluate advisory speeds on curves or other locations without speed advisory signs.

6.2.7 Determine Need for Signal Loop Detection to be Adjusted Advance signal detection loops are placed in accordance with the approach speed.

Increases in posted speed may require new detector loops to be placed to meet the newly posted speeds or the 85th percentile speed, whichever is greater.

6.2.8 Determine Need for Yellow Change Interval Timing to be Adjusted Yellow change intervals are based on approach speed. The CA MUTCD guidance states that the minimum yellow change interval shall be in accordance with Table 4D-102(CA). The posted speed limit, or the prima facie speed limit established by the CVC shall be used for determination of the minimum yellow change interval for the through traffic movement. As an option, the minimum yellow change interval for the through movement and the protected leftturn or protected right-turn may be increased based on a field review or by using appropriate judgment. That judgment may be based on numerous factors, including, but not limited to, 85th percentile speed, intersection geometry, and field observation of traffic behavior.

6.2.9 Study Completion
For State highways, an E&TS should be presented as a memo to the District Director or Deputy District Director for operations depending on delegation. Local agencies will direct their reports to the county board of supervisors or the appropriate city councils. The E&TS should include as a minimum; a strip map, a summary of findings with a discussion of non apparent

Page 48 ends

803

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
conditions, collision review and recommendations, and a copy of the declaration or order to be signed. The local agencies would substitute a proposed ordinance for the declaration. In addition, any proposed speed limit change based on non-apparent conditions requires documentation by a licensed engineer on the memo to the Director accompanying the engineering report. The completion date for the E&TS is when the orders are signed. This date does not have to match the date the strip map was stamped or the date of the justification memo accompanying the E&TS.

6.2.10 Transmittal Memo
For State highways, a transmittal letter to the District Director or Deputy District Director for Operations should be prepared to transmit the E&TS for signature of the speed zone orders and final review of the proposed speed limit. The transmittal letter should include the results of the public hearing and the discussions with the CHP/local law enforcement and local agencies.

See appendix B.4 for a sample transmittal memo.

6.2.11 Sign Installation Orders
Sign installation orders need to be prepared to change the speed limit signs and curve advisory signs. This is also a good opportunity to place signs for any other conditions/concerns discovered in the process.

If no changes are needed to an existing zone, the E&TS goes directly to the signing authority with new orders and then to distribution.

6.3 Distribution

6.3.1 Regular Distribution
Mail a copy of the completed E&TS to CHP or local law enforcement agency, local authorities and court systems as needed. See sample transmittal letter in Appendix Section B.5.

6.3.2 Public Request
The public routinely requests a copy of the latest “speed survey” for a particular section of roadway. All requests should be made via a California public records act request form. See TOPD 09-05-R1 for the release of records policy. These requests are generally of three types.

The first type is for a speed zone established under CVC Section 22354. If the requester is contesting a traffic citation, the E&TS may be sent out with a cover letter (Appendix Section B.6). If the requestor is filing a claim against the state, the district claims office should be contacted immediately for further direction.

The second type of request is for an E&TS for sections of roadway operated under the Maximum Speed Limit Section (22349) of the CVC. If the requestor insists on a letter after being informed that an E&TS is not required for this section of roadway, you may use the sample letter shown in Appendix Section B.7.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
The third type involves legal action against the state. If the requestor is filing a claim against the state, contact your district claims office immediately for further direction.

Page 50 ends

805

VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SHEET
City: ________________________ Date: _______________________ Post Mile: __________________ Location: ______________________________ Weather: ___________________ Posted Speed: ______ Recorder Name: ________________________________ Begin Time: ___________ End Time: _______ Number of Vehicles
mph 5 10 15 20 25 Total Cumulative Total
55 54
53 52 X X X X 4 58
51 X X X X X X X X 8 54
50 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 46
49 X X X X X X X X X X 10 34
48 X X X X X X X X X 9 24
47 X X X X X X 6 15
46 X X X X X 5 9
45 X X 2 4
44 X X 2 2
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 Roadside Type/Development:

Number of Free Flow Vehicles Counted: 58 # to count up: 49 85th percentile calculation: Total (37) times 0.85 = 49.30 This vehicle’s speed was: 51 mph
Number of all vehicles at this speed: 8
Signed: ________________________________ Date: ________________ Title: ___________________ Appendix A – Example Forms

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.1.1 – Vehicle Speed Survey Sheet Count Less Than 100
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 51 806

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.1.2 – Vehicle Speed Survey Sheet Count Greater Than 100

VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SHEET
City: ________________________ Date: _______________________ Post Mile: __________________ Location: ______________________________ Weather: ___________________ Posted Speed: ______ Recorder Name: ________________________________ Begin Time: ___________ End Time: _______ Number of Vehicles
mph 5 10 15 20 25 Total Cumulative Total
55 54
53 52
51 50 X X 2 109
49 X X X X X X X 7 107
48 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 100
47 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 89
46 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 78
45 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 65
44 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 52
43 X X X X X X X X X X 10 41
42 X X X X X X X X X X 10 31
41 X X X X X X X X 8 21
40 X X X X X X X X 8 13
39 X X X X X 5 5
38 37
36 35
34 33
32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
Roadside Type/Development:

Number of Free Flow Vehicles Counted: 109 # to count up: 93 85th percentile calculation: Total (109) times 0.85 = 92.7 This vehicle’s speed was: 48 mph
Number of all vehicles at this speed: 11
Signed: ________________________________ Date: ________________ Title: ___________________

Page 52 ends

807

Number of Vehicles
mph 5 10 15 20 25 Total Cumulative Total
55 54
53 52
51 50
49 48
47 46
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.1.3 – Vehicle Speed Survey Template

VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SHEET
City: ________________________ Date: _______________________ Post Mile: __________________ Location: ______________________________ Weather: ___________________ Posted Speed: ______ Recorder Name: ________________________________ Begin Time: ___________ End Time: _______ Number of Free Flow Vehicles Counted: ___ # to count up: ___ Roadside Type/Development:
85th percentile calculation: Total (___) times 0.85 = ___ This vehicle’s speed was: ___ mph
Number of all vehicles at this speed: ____
Signed: ________________________________ Date: ________________ Title: ___________________ Note: You may find the original excel spreadsheet on the HQ Traffic Engineering Website.

Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 53 808
California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.2 – Sample Strip Map
Note: This scaled figure represents an 11in X 36in size sheet.

STRAIGHT302 BARRIERNONE5,700
70 | 68
62 – 70 | 60 – 68
65 65

32.0 32.5 33.0

0.57 ACC/MVM (0.81 AVERAGE)
ALIGNMENTGRADIENTREMARKS:ROADWAY WIDTHNO. OF STRIPED LANES

TYPE OF DIVISION STRIP

TRAFFIC SIGNAL DATAAVERAGE DAILY TRAFFICOBSERVED SPEED - CRITICAL OBSERVED SPEED - PACEEXISTING SIGNED ZONEPOST MILEPROPOSED SPEED LIMITACCIDENT RATEDISTANCE IN FEET mph
7060504030

RUSTICMOTEL

OLANCHARV PARK

FIRE STATION

Page 54 ends

809
California Manual for Setting Speed Limits

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

SPEED ZONE SURVEY
DIST: 9 CO: INYO RTE: 395
CITY OR TOWN: OLANCHA
STREET OR ROAD: _________
FROM: PM 31.8 TO: PM 34.9
SCALE: 1” = 560’
DATE: 06/10/2009
LEGEND

CRITICAL SPEEDLOWER LIMIT OF PACEINDICATE

HOSPITALS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,AUDITORIUMS, PUBLIC PARKS,SCHOOLS EXISTING ZONESPROPOSED ZONESSHEET 1 OF 2 ZONE 29

STRAIGHT
76 | 72
70 – 76 | 64 – 72
65 55

33.5 34.0 34.5
MOBILE
GAS

STATION
395
POST
OFFICE

SCHOOL RD

FALL RD
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 55 810

Posted or
85th
Percentil
e Speed
Advance Placement Distance1
Conditio
n A:

Speed
reduction
and lane
changing
in heavy
traffic2
Condition B: Deceleration to the listed advisory speed (mph) for the condition
03 104 204 304 404 504 604 704
20 mph 225 ft 100 ft6 N/A5 — — — — — —
25 mph 325 ft 100 ft6 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — —
30 mph 460 ft 100 ft6 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — —
35 mph 565 ft 100 ft6 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — —
40 mph 670 ft 125 ft 100 ft6 100 ft6 N/A5 — — — —
45 mph 775 ft 175 ft 125 ft 100 ft6 100 ft6 N/A5 — — —
50 mph 885 ft 250 ft 200 ft 175 ft 125 ft 100 ft6 — — — 55 mph 990 ft 325 ft 275 ft 225 ft 200 ft 125 ft N/A5 — — 60 mph 1,100 ft 400 ft 350 ft 325 ft 275 ft 200 ft 100 ft6 — — 65 mph 1,200 ft 475 ft 450 ft 400 ft 350 ft 275 ft 200 ft 100 ft6 — 70 mph 1,250 ft 550 ft 525 ft 500 ft 450 ft 375 ft 275 ft 150 ft — 75 mph 1,350 ft 650 ft 625 ft 600 ft 550 ft 475 ft 375 ft 250 ft 100 ft6

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.3 – Table 2C.4: California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices Guidelines for Advance Placement of Warning Signs
1 The distances are adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 180 feet for Condition A. The distances for Condition B have been adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 250 feet, which is appropriate for an alignment warning symbol sign. For Conditions A and B, warning signs with less than 6-inch legend or more than four words, a minimum of 100 feet should be added to the advance placement distance to provide adequate legibility of the warning sign.
2 Typical conditions are locations where the road user must use extra time to adjust speed and change lanes in heavy traffic because of a complex driving situation. Typical signs are Merge and Right Lane Ends. The distances are determined by providing the driver a PRT of 14.0 to 14.5 seconds for vehicle maneuvers (2005 AASHTO Policy, Exhibit 3-3, Decision Sight Distance, Avoidance Maneuver E) minus the legibility distance of 180 feet for the appropriate sign. 3 Typical condition is the warning of a potential stop situation. Typical signs are Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, Signal Ahead, and Intersection Warning signs. The distances are based on the 2005 AASHTO Policy, Exhibit 3-1, Stopping Sight Distance, providing a PRT of 2.5 seconds, a deceleration rate of 11.2 feet/second2
, minus the sign legibility distance of 180 feet.
4 Typical conditions are locations where the road user must decrease speed to maneuver through the warned condition. Typical signs are Turn, Curve, Reverse Turn, or Reverse Curve. The distance is determined by providing a 2.5 second PRT, a vehicle deceleration rate of 10 feet/second2 , minus the sign
legibility distance of 250 feet.

Page 56 ends

811

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 57 A.4 – Sample TSAR Report: Collision Summary OTM22215 Page#1 06/21/2007 TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL PM 02:16 TSAR - ACCIDENT SUMMARY TOTAL PERSONS MOTOR VEHICLES INVOLVED <---LINES CODED---> ACCIDENTS FATAL INJURY PDO KILLED INJURED NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE 16 0 3 13 0 7 4 25.0 1 4 25.0 1 9 56.3 2 9 56.3 2 1 6.3 3 1 6.3 3 2 12.5 >3 1 6.3 4 1 6.3 5 0 0.0 6 0 0.0 7 0 0.0 8 0 0.0 9 <---- HOUR OF DAY ----> <--- ACCESS CONTROL ---> <--- SIDE OF HIGHWAY --->

NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE
1 6.3 00- 12 MID. 0 0.0 C-CONVENTIONAL 0 0.0 N-NORTHBOUND 0 0.0 01- 1 A.M. 0 0.0 E-EXPRESSWAY 0 0.0 S-SOUTHBOUND 0 0.0 02- 2 A.M. 16 100.0 F-FREEWAY 12 75.0 E-EASTBOUND 0 0.0 03- 3 A.M. 0 0.0 S-1-WAY CITY ST 4 25.0 W-WESTBOUND 0 0.0 04- 4 A.M. 0 0.0 --INVALID DATA 0 0.0 05- 5 A.M. 0 0.0 +-NO DATA 0 0.0 06- 6 A.M. 3 18.8 07- 7 A.M. 0 0.0 08- 8 A.M. 2 12.5 09- 9 A.M. 3 18.8 10- 10 A.M. <----- YEAR -----> <----- MONTH -----> <---- DAY OF WEEK ----> 0 0.0 11- 11 A.M. NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE 0 0.0 12- 12 NOON 0 0.0 13- 1 P.M. 0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 01-JANUARY 1 6.3 1-SUNDAY 0 0.0 14- 2 P.M. 0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 02-FEBRUARY 0 0.0 2-MONDAY 0 0.0 15- 3 P.M. 0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 03-MARCH 4 25.0 3-TUESDAY 5 31.3 16- 4 P.M. 0 0.0 1999 1 6.3 04-APRIL 5 31.3 4-WEDNESDAY 1 6.3 17- 5 P.M. 0 0.0 2000 1 6.3 05-MAY 2 12.5 5-THURSDAY 0 0.0 18- 6 P.M. 0 0.0 2001 3 18.8 06-JUNE 3 18.8 6-FRIDAY 0 0.0 19- 7 P.M. 0 0.0 2002 5 31.3 07-JULY 1 6.3 7-SATURDAY 1 6.3 20- 8 P.M. 0 0.0 2003 3 18.8 08-AUGUST 0 0.0 21- 9 P.M. 0 0.0 2004 1 6.3 09-SEPTEMBER 0 0.0 22- 10 P.M. 0 0.0 2005 1 6.3 10-OCTOBER 0 0.0 23- 11 P.M. 16 100.0 2006 1 6.3 11-NOVEMBER 0 0.0 25- UNKNOWN 0 0.0 2007 0 0.0 12-DECEMBER 812

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits OTM22215 Page#2 06/21/2007 TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL 02:16 PM TSAR - ACCIDENT SUMMARY <-- PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR --> <--- TYPE OF COLLISION ---> <--- ROADWAY CONDITION --->

NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE
1 6.3 1-INFLUENCE ALCOHOL0 0.0 2-FOLLOW TOO CLOSE 1 6.3 A-HEAD-ON 0 0.0 A-HOLES, RUTS0 0.0 3-FAILURE TO YIELD 2 12.5 B-SIDESWIPE 0 0.0 B-LOOSE MATERIAL3 18.8 4-IMPROPER TURN 10 62.5 C-REAR END 0 0.0 C-OBSTRUCTION ON ROA 10 62.5 5-SPEEDING 0 0.0 D-BROADSIDE 0 0.0 D-CONSTRUCT-REPAIR-ZONE 2 12.5 6-OTHER VIOLATIONS 2 12.5 E-HIT OBJECT 0 0.0 E-REDUCED ROAD WIDTH0 0.0 B-IMPROPER DRIVING 0 0.0 F-OVERTURN 0 0.0 F-FLOODED0 0.0 C-OTHER THAN DRIVER 0 0.0 G-AUTO-PEDESTRIAN 0 0.0 G-OTHER 0 0.0 D-UNKNOWN 1 6.3 H-OTHER 15 93.8 H-NO UNUSUAL CONDITION0 0.0 E-FELL SLEEP 0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 1 6.3 <-NOT STATED0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES0 0.0 -INVALID CODES <--------- WEATHER ---------> <------------ LIGHTING ------------> <----- ROAD SURFACE ----->

NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE
15 93.8 A-CLEAR 15 93.8 A-DAY LIGHT 15 93.8 A-DRY
1 6.3 B-CLOUDY 0 0.0 B-DUSK/DAWN 0 0.0 B-WET 0 0.0 C-RAINING 0 0.0 C-DARK-STREET LIGHT 0 0.0 C-SNOWY, ICY 0 0.0 D-SNOWING 0 0.0 D-DARK-NO STREET LIGHT 0 0.0 D-SLIPPERY 0 0.0 E-FOG 0 0.0 E-DARK-INOPR STREET LIGHT 1 6.3 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 F-OTHER 0 0.0 F-DARK-NOT STATED 0 0.0 -INVALID CODE 0 0.0 G-WIND 1 6.3 <-NOT STATED0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES0 0.0 -INVALID CODES <------ RIGHT OF WAY CONTROL ------> <-------- HIGHWAY GROUP --------> <- INTERSECTION/RAMP ACCIDENT LOCATION ->

NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE
0 0.0 A-CONTROL FUNCTIONING 0 0.0 R-IND. ALIGN RIGHT 0 0.0 1-RAMP INTERSECTION (EXIT) 0 0.0 B-CONTROL NOT FUNCTIONING 0 0.0 L-IND. ALIGN LEFT 1 6.3 2-RAMP 0 0.0 C-CONTROLS OBSCURED 16 100.0 D-DIVIDED 0 0.0 3-RAMP ENTRY 16 **** D-NO CONTROLS PRESENT 0 0.0 U-UNDIVIDED 0 0.0 4-RAMP AREA, INTERSECTION 0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 5-IN INTERSECTION0 0.0 -INVALID CODES 0 0.0 6-OUTSIDE INTRSCT-NONSTATE 15 93.8 --DOES NOT APPLY

Page 58 ends

813

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
OTM22215
Page#3
06/21/2007 TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL02:16 PM TSAR - PARTY SUMMARY <------------ PARTY TYPE ------------> <- MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION -> <---- OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTORS ----> #1 #2

NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT NUMBER PCT CODE 14 87.5 A-PASNGR CAR/STA WAGON 3 18.8 A-STOPPED 0 0.0 0 0.0 1-INFLUENCE ALCOHOL 0 0.0 B-PASNGR CAR W/TRAILER 12 75.0 B-PROCEDED STRAIGHT 0 0.0 0 0.0 2-FOLLOW TOO CLOSE0 0.0 C-MOTORCYCLE 0 0.0 C-RAN OFF ROAD 0 0.0 0 0.0 3-FAILURE TO YIELD7 43.8 D-PICKUP/PANEL TRUCK 0 0.0 D-MAKING RIGHT TURN 1 6.3 0 0.0 4-IMPROPER TURN0 0.0 E-PICKUP/PANEL W/TRAILER 0 0.0 E-MAKING LEFT TURN 1 6.3 0 0.0 5-SPEEDING0 0.0 F-TRUCK/TRUCK TRACTOR 0 0.0 F-MAKING U TURN 1 6.3 0 0.0 6-OTHER VIOLATIONS2 12.5 G-TRUCK/TRACTOR & 1 TRAILER 1 6.3 G-BACKING 0 0.0 0 0.0 A-CELL PHONE* (INATTN)
0 0.0 2-TRUCK/TRACTOR & 2 TRAILER 2 12.5 H-SLOWING, STOPPING 0 0.0 0 0.0 B-ELECTRC EQUIP*(INATTN)
0 0.0 3-TRUCK/TRACTOR & 3 TRAILER 0 0.0 I-PASS OTHER VEHICLE 0 0.0 0 0.0 CRADIO/CD/HDPHN*(INATTN)0 0.0 4-SINGLE UNIT TANKER 2 12.5 J-CHANGING LANES 0 0.0 0 0.0 D-SMOKING* (INATTN)0 0.0 5-TRUCK/TRA & 1 TANK TRALR 0 0.0 K-PARKING 0 0.0 0 0.0 E-VISION OBSCUREMENT0 0.0 6-TRUCK/TRA & 2 TANK TRALR 0 0.0 L-ENTER FROM SHLDR 2 12.5 0 0.0 F-INATTENTION - OTHER 0 0.0 H-SCHOOL BUS 0 0.0 M-OTHER UNSAFE TURN 3 18.8 0 0.0 G-STOP & GO TRAFFIC0 0.0 I-OTHER BUS 0 0.0 N-CROSS INTO OPP LN 0 0.0 0 0.0 H-ENTER/LEAVE RAMP1 6.3 J-EMERGENCY VEHICLE 0 0.0 O-PARKED 0 0.0 0 0.0 I-PREVIOUS COLLISION0 0.0 K-HIGHWAY CONST EQUP 0 0.0 P-MERGING 0 0.0 0 0.0 J-UNFAMILIAR WITH ROAD
0 0.0 L-BICYLE 0 0.0 Q-TRAVEL WRONG WAY 0 0.0 0 0.0 K-DEFECT VEHICLE EQUIP
0 0.0 M-OTHER-MOTOR VEH 4 25.0 R-OTHER 0 0.0 0 0.0 L-UNINVOLVED VEHICLE1 6.3 N-OTHER-NON-MOTOR VEH 0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 0 0.0 M-OTHER0 0.0 O-SPILLED LOADS 13 81.3 0 0.0 N-NONE APPARENT 0 0.0 P-DISENGAGED TOW 0 0.0 0 0.0 P-WIND
0 0.0 Q-UNINVOLVED VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN 0 0.0 0 0.0 R-RAMP ACCIDENT 0 0.0 R-MOPED 0 0.0 0 0.0 S-RUNAWAY VEHICLE
0 0.0 T-TRAIN 0 0.0 2- XING XWALK - INTRST 0 0.0 0 0.0 T-EATING* (INATTN)0 0.0 U-PEDESTRIAN 0 0.0 3- XING XWALK - NOT INTR 0 0.0 0 0.0 U-CHILDREN* (INATTN)0 0.0 V-DISMOUNT PEDESTRIAN 0 0.0 4- XING NOT XWALK 0 0.0 0 0.0 V-ANIMALS* (INATTN)0 0.0 W-ANIMAL - LIVESTOCK 0 0.0 5- ROADWAY - INCL SHLDR 0 0.0 0 0.0 W-PERSNL HYGIENE*(INATTN)
0 0.0 X-ANIMAL - DEER 0 0.0 6- NOT IN ROADWAY 0 0.0 0 0.0 X-READING* (INATTN) 0 0.0 Z-ANIMAL - OTHER 0 0.0 7- APRH-LEAVE SCHL BUS 1 6.3 16 100.0 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 - INVALID CODES 0 0.0 0 0.0 --DOES NOT APPLY
<---- DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ----> <---- SPECIAL INFORMATION ----> * INATTENTION CODES EFF. 01-01-01

NUMBER PCT CODE NUMBER PCT CODE
0 0.0 N-N, NE, NW BOUND 0 0.0 A-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS0 0.0 S-S, SE, SW BOUND 1 6.3 B-CELL PHONE IN USE* 12 75.0 E-EASTBOUND 13 81.3 C-CELL PHONE NOT IN USE*
4 25.0 W-WESTBOUND 0 0.0 D-CELL PHONE NONE/UNKNOWN*0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 4 25.0 <-NOT STATED0 0.0 --DOES NOT APPLY 0 0.0 --DOES NOT APPLY 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 59 814

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
OTM22215
Page#4
06/21/2007 TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL02:16 PM TSAR - PARTY SUMMARY <------------------- OBJECT STRUCK -------------------> PRIMARY OTHERS <------ LOCATION OF COLLISION ------>

NUMBER PCT NUMBER PCT CODE PRIMARY OTHERS

NUMBER PCT NUMBER PCT CODE
0 0.0 0 0.0 01-SIDE OF BRIDGE RAILING0 0.0 0 0.0 02-END OF BRIDGE RAILING 0 0.0 0 0.0 A-BEYOND MEDIAN OR STRIPE-LEFT0 0.0 0 0.0 03-PIER, COLUMN, ABUTMENT 2 12.5 0 0.0 B-BEYOND SHLDER DRIVERS LEFT 0 0.0 0 0.0 04-BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-LEFT SHOULDER AREA 0 0.0 0 0.0 05-BRIDGE END POST IN GORE 5 31.3 0 0.0 D-LEFT LANE0 0.0 0 0.0 06-END OF GUARD RAIL 6 37.5 4 25.0 E-INTERIOR LANES 0 0.0 0 0.0 07-BRIDGE APPROACH GUARD RAIL 1 6.3 1 6.3 F-RIGHT LANE 0 0.0 0 0.0 10-LIGHT OR SIGNAL POLE 0 0.0 0 0.0 G-RIGHT SHOULDER AREA 0 0.0 0 0.0 11-UTILITY POLE 1 6.3 1 6.3 H-BEYOND SHLDER DRIVERS RIGHT 0 0.0 0 0.0 12-POLE (TYPE NOT STATED) 0 0.0 0 0.0 I-GORE AREA 2 12.5 0 0.0 13-TRAFFIC SIGN/SIGN POST 1 6.3 0 0.0 J-OTHER 0 0.0 0 0.0 14-OTHER SIGNS NOT TRAFFIC 0 0.0 0 0.0 V-HOV LANE(S) 0 0.0 0 0.0 15-GUARDRAIL 0 0.0 0 0.0 W-HOV LANE BUFFER AREA 2 12.5 0 0.0 16-MEDIAN BARRIER 0 0.0 0 0.0 <-NOT STATED 0 0.0 0 0.0 17-WALL (EXCEPT SOUND WALL) 3 18.8 16 100.0 --DOES NOT APPLY0 0.0 0 0.0 18-DIKE OR CURB 0 0.0 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES 0 0.0 0 0.0 19-TRAFFIC ISLAND0 0.0 0 0.0 20-RAISED BARS0 0.0 0 0.0 21-CONCRETE OBJ (HDWL, D.I.)0 0.0 0 0.0 22-GUIDEPOST, CULVERT, PM0 0.0 0 0.0 23-CUT SLOPE OR EMBANKMENT0 0.0 0 0.0 24-OVER EMBANKMENT0 0.0 0 0.0 25-IN WATER <------ DRUG/PHYSICAL ------> 0 0.0 0 0.0 26-DRAINAGE DITCH PRIMARY OTHERS 0 0.0 0 0.0 27-FENCE NUMBER PCT NUMBER PCT CODE 0 0.0 1 6.3 28-TREES0 0.0 0 0.0 29-PLANTS 16 100.0 0 0.0 A-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING 0 0.0 0 0.0 30-SOUND WALL 0 0.0 0 0.0 B-HBD - UNDER INFLUENCE0 0.0 0 0.0 40-NATURAL MATRL ON ROAD 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-HBD - NOT UNDER INFLUENCE0 0.0 0 0.0 41-TEMP BARRICADES, CONES 0 0.0 0 0.0 D-HBD - IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWN0 0.0 0 0.0 42-OTHER OBJECT ON ROAD 0 0.0 1 6.3 E-UNDER DRUG INFLUENCE 0 0.0 0 0.0 43-OTHER OBJECT OFF ROAD 0 0.0 0 0.0 F-OTHER PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT 0 0.0 1 6.3 44-OVERTURNED 1 6.3 0 0.0 G-IMPAIRMENT NOT KNOWN 0 0.0 0 0.0 45-CRASH CUSHION (SAND) 0 0.0 0 0.0 H-NOT APPLICABLE 0 0.0 0 0.0 46-CRASH CUSHION (OTHER) 0 0.0 1 6.3 I-FATIGUE 0 0.0 0 0.0 51-CALL BOX 1 6.3 15 93.8 < NOT STATED0 0.0 0 0.0 98-UNKNOWN OBJECT STRUCK 0 0.0 0 0.0 --DOES NOT APPLY0 0.0 0 0.0 99- NO OBJECT INVOLVED 0 0.0 0 0.0 -INVALID CODES 12 75.0 3 18.8 V1 THRU V9 VEHICLE 1 TO 9
0 0.0 0 0.0 << NOT STATED3 18.8 16 100.0 -- DOES NOT APPLY0 0.0 0 0.0 - INVALID CODES

Page 60 ends

815

TSAR COLLISION DETAIL KEY
AXR330 ACC-DETAIL TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL PAGE 1 REQ NO 5642 ALL COLLISIONS ON 02-SHA-273-5.000/11.000 FOR TIME PERIOD 01/01/2000 THROUGH 06/30/2000 SD
P
12G<
770/780: SOBRIETY/DRUG/PHYSICAL

PARTY INFORMATION
MOVB
760: MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION
OA
F
12H<
740/750: OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTORS

O LS OO C
---690: OTHER LOCATION OF COLLISION
680: OTHER OBJECT STRUCK

O LS OO C
---690: OTHER LOCATION OF COLLISION
680: OTHER OBJECT STRUCK
LOCE
670: PRIMARY LOCATION OF COLLISION
OSP
V2
660: PRIMARY OBJECT STRUCK
PERSN
I
00 NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED
K
00 NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED
SI<
630: SPECIAL INFORMATION
VHI1
620: VEHICLE HIGHWAY INDICATOR
DIRS
610: DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
PTE
600: PARTY TYPE
NO
MTRVEH
02 NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES

GENERAL COLLISION INFORMATION
TOCG
526: TYPE OF COLLISION
RWCD
525: RIGHT OF WAY CONTROL
RCH
524: ROADWAY CONDITION
ENVIR
COND
SA
523: ROAD SURFACE
LA
522: LIGHTING
WA
521: WEATHER
PCF6
519: PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
COMMON

ACCIDENT
NUMBER
450100452 517: COMMON ACCIDENT

ACIDDENT
TIMEHHMM1817 TIME (24 HR)
DATE

MO-DA-YR
05-23-00
DATE
DAY3
520: DAY OF WEEK
SOHS
514: SIDE OF HIGHWAY
IRL-
515: INTERSECTION OR RAMP LOCATION
<-------HIGHWAY------->
FTH
FILE TYPE [HIGHWAY(H), INTERSECTION(I),
IOI

INSIDE(I) OR OUTSIDE(O) CITY
HIGHWAY INFO.

RUU

URBAN(B) RURAL(R) OR URBANIZED(U)
LANES
RT02

NUMBER OF RIGHT LANES
LT02

NUMBER OF LEFT LANES
BAZ
264: MEDIAN BARRIER TYPE
MTH
263: MEDIAN TYPE
ACC
242: ACCESS CONTROL
HGD
209: HIGHWAY GROUP
LOC

POSTMILE
005.160 POSTMILE

LOCATION
PRE

POSTMILE PREFIX
CO

SHACOUNTY
SUF

ROUTE SUFFIX
RTE
NO
273ROUTE
DIST
02 DISTRICT

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.5 – TSAR Detail Key
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 61 816
------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- OTM22130 California Department of Transportation Page 1 06/06/2007 Table B - Selective Accident Rate Calculation PM 03:04
Rate No. of Accidents / Significances ADT Total Accident Rates Group Multi Kld Main MV+ or Actual Average Location Description (RUS) Tot Fat Inj F+I Veh Wet Dark Inj X-St MVM Fat F+I Tot Fat F+I Tot 51 SHA 005 001.000 - 51 SHA 555 0.500MI H 54 4 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 57.0 10.4 0.000 .19 .39 0.019 .26 .60 0001-0001 2006-01-01 2006-12-31 12mo. R 2 OTM22131

Page 1 ends

06/06/2007 Table B Accident Records
AM 12:00

I S D ACCIDENT COMMON P ENVIR R T NO P D V S PERSO O L O L O L O L OA M SD

REQUEST- P POST P F R O A DATE TIME ACCIDENT C COND R W O MTR T I H I K I S O S O S O S O F O P & LINE ARS P MILE S T L H Y MM-DD-YY HHMM NUMBER F W L S C C C VEH R I P C O C O C O C 12 V 12 1 1 51 SHA 555 001.020 H - S 1 03-27-06 2122 925215730 5 B D B H D B 02 A S 1 C 00 00 V2F 16B --- --- N< B A< A S 1 C 00 03 V1D 16B 17H --- N< B A<
1 1 51 SHA 555 001.020 H - S 5 12-01-06 1420 925214561 5 C A B H D F 01 G S 1 C 00 01 44F --- --- --- N< B A< 1 1 51 SHA 555 001.030 H - N 2 08-08-06 0359 925215175 5 A D A H D C 03 G N 1 C 00 00 V2F --- --- --- N< B A< G N 1 C 00 00 V1F 01H --- --- N< B A< G N 1 C 00 00 --- V4F --- --- N< B A< N N 1 < 00 00 --- V3F --- --- << R <<
1 1 51 SHA 555 001.050 H - N 4 10-12-06 2125 925213432 5 A D A D A E 02 A N 1 C 00 01 01B V2D V4D --- N< 5 A< F N 1 < 00 00 --- V1D V3D --- N< 5 H< U N - C 00 01 --- V2- --- --- N< 5 A< U N - C 00 01 --- V1- --- --- N< 5 A<

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.6 – Example Table B Report

Page 62 ends

817

Approx.
5-10 mi
Approx.
5-10 mi
Max
25 mi
Max
25 mi
Approx.
3 mi
Approx.
3 mi
*
*
California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.7 – Regulatory Speed Zone Sign Placement
*Optional – place on left shoulder only where the median is of sufficient width to permit sign maintenance without lane closures Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 63 818

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
A.8 – Transition Zones

0.5 mi

0.5 mi
Approx 1 mile
Approx 1 mile

0.5 mi

0.5 mi
See Table 2C.4
Approx 1 mile
Approx 1 mile
See Table 2C.4
or or

Page 64 ends

819

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Appendix B – Sample Letters
B.1.1 – Sample Request for Temporary Traffic Control Speed Zone M e m o r a n d u m
To: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS BRANCH CHIEF Date: MMDD, YYYY
From: MAINTENANCE REPRESENTATIVE
Signature
Subject: Request for Regulatory Speed Zone
In accordance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22362 a speed reduction of xx mph will provide protection for workers while at work in the State right of way. The reduced speed limit shall be in effect only during working hours and signs will be covered when work is not in progress.

The current posted speed limit in this segment is xx mph and the reduced limit will be xx mph.

Include a brief description of the maintenance work zone (Limits of work zone, activities, date-time etc.)
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 65 820

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.1.2 - Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Determination Form (Pg. 1 of 3) CEM 1301 (NEW XX/XX/2020)
To CONTRACT NUMBER
Project File and Resident Engineer Pending File
COUNTY-ROUTE-Begin Post Mile/End Post Mile
FROM

PROJECT IDENTIFIER NUMBER
Project Engineer

CONSTRUCTION WORK ZONE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION
Temporary Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction
Construction work zone speed limit reduction: (Check appropriate box) The construction work zone speed limit will be reduced 10-mph in compliance with policy in Section 2.3.2 of the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits. * Exception (1) the construction work zone speed limit will be reduced XX mph which is more than the current policy of a 10-mph reduction. The speed limit will be reduced to XX mph from existing speed limit of XX mph.

Justification for decreasing speed more than 10-mph exception:

The following condition for exception for not reducing speed limit in construction work zone shown in Section 2.3.2 of the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits applies for this project:
(Check appropriate box)
There are no closures required for the project
Lane closures on conventional highways using reversing traffic control Lane closure lengths less than ½ mile
Expected lane closure duration less than 1-hour
Moving lane closures only
Ramp closures only
Shoulder closure, no workers or equipment will be working on the shoulder area immediately adjacent to traffic lane
Lane closure, no workers or equipment will be working on the lane * Exception (2) to not reduce the speed limit as required by the policy that construction work zone speed limit be reduced 10-mph is requested.

Reasons for exception to policy:
* Exception must be approved by DEPUTY DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS and DEPUTY DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION.

Page 66 ends

821

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.1.2 - Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Determination Form (Pg. 2 of 3) CEM 1301 (NEW XX/XX/2020)
Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction 24 Hours a Day 7 Days a Week Not Required

ROUTE DIRECTION BEGIN POST MILE/STATION END POST MILE/STATION POSTED SPEED LIMIT (mph) PROPOSED REDUCED SPEED LIMIT (mph) DURATION (days) Construction work zone speed limit reduction 24 Hours a Day 7 Days a Week is required because of the following roadway condition: (Check appropriate box) Major change in roadway geometric alignment (such as median crossover that results in counter flow traffic or other geometric alignment conditions that affects the highway design speed)
Long term lane closure (existing lane not available for use 24/7) Reduced lane width (less than 11 feet)
No shoulders
Temporary barrier adjacent to traffic (no shoulders)
Pavement conditions, including edge drop-offs, tapered notch wedge, cold planned pavement surfaces and chip seals.

Construction entrances and egress locations, including median access locations Sight distance restrictions, including intersections and entrance ramps * Exception (3) to use construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7 for a roadway condition not listed above.

Reason for 24/7 reduction in speed limit:

Construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7: (Check appropriate box) The construction work zone speed limit will be reduced 10-mph. * Exception (4) the construction work zone speed limit will be reduced XX mph which is more than the current policy of a 10-mph reduction. The speed limit will be reduced to XX mph from existing speed limit of XX mph.

Justification for decreasing speed more than 10-mph exception:
*
Exception must be approved by DEPUTY DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS and DEPUTY DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.1.2 - Construction Work Zone Speed Limit Reduction Determination Form (Pg. 3 of 3) CEM 1301 (NEW XX/XX/2020)
CONTRACT NUMBER COUNTY-ROUTE-Begin Post Mile/End Post Mile PROJECT IDENTIFIER NUMBER

PROJECT ENGINEER
I have evaluated the project and determined the requirements for construction work zone speed limit reduction as shown on this form.
_____________________________________________
Registered Civil Engineer Date
An exception to the policy for construction work zone speed limit reduction is requested for this project

PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATE

MUST BE COMPLETED FOR EXCEPTIONS ONLY

DEPUTY DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS
Exception (1) speed limit reduction of more than 10-mph for the construction work zone is approved.

Exception (2) to not reduce the speed limit as required by the policy that construction work zone speed limit be reduced 10-mph is approved.

Exception (3) to use construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7 for a roadway condition not listed is approved.

Exception (4) speed limit reduction of more than 10-mph for the construction work zone 24/7 is approved.

PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATE

MUST BE COMPLETED FOR EXCEPTIONS ONLY

DEPUTY DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION

APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS
Exception (1) speed limit reduction of more than 10-mph for the construction work zone is approved.

Exception (2) to not reduce the speed limit as required by the policy that construction work zone speed limit be reduced 10-mph is approved.

Exception (3) to use construction work zone speed limit reduction 24/7 for a roadway condition not listed is approved.

Exception (4) speed limit reduction of more than 10-mph for the construction work zone 24/7 is approved.

PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATE

Page 68 ends

823

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.2 – Sample Notification to Board of Supervisors/Public Hearing

MMDD, YYYY
Board of Supervisors
Abcd County
154 Main Avenue
Anywhere, CA XXXXX
Dear Board of Supervisors:

This letter is notification that the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey performed by Caltrans (Caltrans) indicate that the existing 45 mph speed zone on State Highway xx from P.M XX.XX (a point approximately XXX feet north of ABC Drive) to P.M. XX.XX (a point approximately xxx feet north of DEF Road) should be raised to 55 mph.

As required by Section 22354.5 of the Vehicle Code, this letter serves as notice to allow you the opportunity to conduct a public hearing on the proposed speed limit increase, if you so desire. If you choose to have a public hearing, we will try to be available to attend the meeting to answer any questions which may arise concerning the proposed speed zone change. It is not our intent to make a formal presentation or run the hearing, if held.

Please check the appropriate statement on the bottom of this page and sign, date, and return this letter to the address by MMDD,YYYY. If we have not heard from you by MMDD,YYYY, we will assume no public hearing will take place and we will proceed with finalizing the changes in the existing speed zone.

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the information gathered during the Engineering and Traffic Survey, we would be happy to meet with you at your convenience. You may contact me at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,
Name here,
Title
____________ A public hearing is not necessary.
___________ Abcd County will conduct a public hearing for the segment referenced above. The public hearing will be held on date at time at address.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.3.1 – Sample Order 1: Decreasing 55mph Speed Limit on State Highway The California Department of Transportation, having determined upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey, that a speed limit of 55 miles per hour is more than reasonable and safe upon the portion of the State Highway hereinafter described, and that the speed limit hereinafter specified lower than 55 miles per hour is appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe thereon; it is accordingly, ORDERED, that a speed limit of 40 miles per hour be and the same is hereby determined and declared on and for State Highway Route Dist-Co-Rte, beginning at P.M. XX.XX, a point approximately XX feet north of junction of SR-XXX & SR-ZZZ, and extending to P.M. XX.XX, a point XX miles north of ABC Street, a total distance of XX miles.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appropriate signs giving notice of said speed limit be erected upon said State Highway to indicate the change in speed limit and that said speed limit shall be effective upon the erection of such signs.

This order is made pursuant to the current delegations of authority from the Director of Transportation to the District Director of Transportation to the undersigned Deputy District Director.

Any previous orders restricting speed limits on the above-described portions of said State Highway are herewith revoked.

Dated: ___________________
Name: ____________________
Deputy District Director
Maintenance & Traffic Operations

Page 70 ends

825

________________________
_______________________________________
California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.3.2 – Sample Order 2: Increasing 65mph Speed Limit on State Highway The California Department of Transportation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 22356, of the California Vehicle Code, having determined, after consultation with California Highway Patrol and upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys, that a speed limit of 70 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and is reasonable and safe upon the Interstate Highway as described below, which Interstate highway segment is freeway, such determination is full consistent with, and in full compliance with Federal law; it is accordingly ORDERED, that a speed limit of 70 miles per hour be and the same is hereby determined and declared on and for State Highway Route Dist-Co-Rte beginning at Post Mile XX.XX, a point approximately XX feet west of the ABC Bridge(Br # xx-xxx) , to Post Mile XX.XX, a point approximately XX feet east of ABC Road, a total distance of XX miles.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as agreed upon by Caltrans District xx and California Highway Patrol, appropriate signs giving notice of said speed limit be erected upon the so described Interstate above to indicate the change in speed limit and that such speed limit shall be effective upon the erection of such signs.

Any previous orders restricting speed limits on the above-described portions of said State Highway are herewith revoked.

Dated: ___________________

XXXXXXXXXXX
Director
Department of Transportation District - xx
Endorsement
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 22356 of the California Vehicle Code, the department of California Highway Patrol acknowledges consultation with the California Department of Transportation and approval the maximum speed of 70 miles per hour contained in this order.

Xxxxxxxx DATE
Chief
California Highway Patrol
Xxxxxx Division.

________________________________________
California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.4 – Sample Transmittal Memo to Deputy Director
To: Name
Deputy District Director
Maintenance & Traffic Operations
Date: MMDD, YYYY
File: Dist-Co - Rte P.M. 7.01/7.61
Increase from 45 mph to 55 mph.

Dist-Co - Rte P.M. 5.41/7.01
Shorten 45 mph speed zone limit.

From: Name
Title
Subject: Increase Speed Limit on SR XXX north of Town
Attached, for your consideration, are orders to increase the existing speed limit of 45 mph to 55 mph on State Route XXX north of Town from PM XX.XX to XX.XX and to update the shortened 45 mph speed zone limit. In accordance with Section 22354.5(a) of the California Vehicle Code, consultation of this proposal was made with the California Highway Patrol and no objections were received. In accordance with Section 22354.5(b) of the California Vehicle Code, we sent a letter to the ABC County Board of Supervisors notifying them of this proposal on MMM DD, YYYY. This Board of Supervisors sent us a reply on MMM DD, YYYY indicating that they will not be holding a public hearing on this issue.

Approval of the attached new Orders is recommended. Please return the signed Order to the Traffic Operations Branch for further processing.

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:

NAME
Title
Attachment

Page 72 ends

827

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.5 – Sample Transmittal Letter to California Highway Patrol

MMDD,YYYY
Dist.-Co-R -XX
30 mph Speed Zone
Town
Lieutenant name
California Highway Patrol
100 Abc Way
Town, CA XXXXX
Dear Lieutenant Name:

Enclosed for your information and files are three copies of the latest signed speed zone survey sheets, order sheets, and speed zone justification sheets on SR XXX in City of town in CCC County.

The following 30 mph zone is valid and the old order will continue in effect until the dates as follows:

Route XXX – P.M. XX.XX – XX.XX (30 mph) MMDD,YYYY
Where radar is used for enforcement, these engineering and traffic surveys satisfy the requirement for a seven-year review.

If you have any additional questions or concerns about these speed zones, please call Name at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

Sincerely,
Name
Title
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 73 828

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.6 – Sample Cover Letter for Speed Survey to Public Person(s)

MMDD,YYYY
Dist- Co-Rte
PM –XX.XX-XX.XX
Various speed zones
Oak Bluff to Becket
Mr. Joe Public
P.O.BOX 1234
Becket CA -XXXXX
Dear Mr. Public:

This letter is in regard to your request regarding the speed survey on SR-XX at ABC Road.

I am enclosing a copy of the speed survey for SR-XX in B Town.

If you have any additional questions or concerns about this speed survey, please call Name at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

Sincerely,
Name
Title

Page 74 ends

829

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.7 – Sample Response Letter for Non-E&TS Area

MMDD, YYYY
Mr. XXX
Street address
City State and Zip Code
Dear Mr. XXX:

This letter is in response to your request for the engineering and traffic survey for the portion of US 395 north of Walker in Mono County California. My understanding is you were interested in the area about 5 miles north of the town of Walker.

In accordance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22349, the maximum speed limit on two lane undivided conventional highways in the State of California is 55 miles per hour. The speed limit on this portion of US 395 is 55 miles per hour. Since the speed limit is set at the maximum speed allowed by the CVC, no speed survey is needed to support the speed limit.

Sincerely,
Signature
Title
Attachment California Vehicle Code Section 22349
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 75 830

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.8.1 – Justification Memo Sample 1
M e m o r a n d u m
To: XXX Date: MMDD, YYYY
District Director or Deputy District Director
Caltrans District X
From: XXX
District X Traffic Operations Engineer
Traffic Operations
Signature
Subject: US 395 Speed Limit
In accordance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) sections 22348-22366, the 2006 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Caltrans Policy Directive 09-04, an engineering and traffic survey was conducted from postmile (PM) 113.35 to PM 118.49, in and near Bishop, on US 395 in Inyo County in October 2009.

The MUTCD and Caltrans Policy Directive 09-04 recommend setting a speed limit at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic. The MUTCD and Caltrans Policy Directive 09-04 also allow for speed limit reduction below the 85th percentile, where an engineering study indicates the need for a reduction in speed to match existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community and such reduction will facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic.

Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits include the following:

A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; B. The pace speed;
C. Roadside development and environment;
D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period.

The following addresses Page 3 of 6 from the October 2009 speed study. The limits of page 3 are from Short Street (PM 115.34) to the US 395/US 6 junction (PM 116.35)

Page 76 ends

831

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
The northbound 85th percentile speed averages 30 mph. The northbound pace speed in this area averages 24-33 mph. The southbound 85th percentile speed averages 31 mph. The southbound pace speed in this area averages 23-32 mph. The annual average daily traffic count is 15,500. The current posted speed limit is within the current pace speed.

The current roadway consists of two 12 foot lanes in each direction separated by a 12 foot two way left turn lane and 2-4 foot shoulders with no parking allowed on either side of the road. There are at least 60 driveways and 11 intersections between Short Street (PM 115.34) and the US 395/US 6 junction. Many of these intersections are tee intersections and are not readily apparent to a driver. Each tee intersection has 11 conflict points and each 4-way intersection has 32 conflict points in a 5-lane cross-section.

The most recent 36-month accident history shows 24 total accidents. The total accident rate is slightly lower than the statewide average for this type of facility. Three of the 24 accidents involved a pedestrian being struck. One involved a motorcycle being struck. “Speeding” was the primary collision factor (PCF) in 54.2% of accidents. “Failure to Yield” was the PCF for 20.8% of collisions and “Other Violations” was the PCF in 16.7% of accidents. The most common type of accident is “Rear End” with 58.3%. The next most common is “Broadside” and “Auto/Pedestrian” with 12.5% each. 66.7% of accidents occur on the northbound side, 33.3% occur on the southbound side. In general, lower speed collisions are less severe than higher speed collisions. Higher speeds increase stopping distances and the energy that is dissipated in an accident. Higher speeds could raise the severity of the collisions occurring in this area. A 1999 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states the following; “…higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively.”
After evaluating current critical and pace speeds it is recommended that a 25 mph speed limit be implemented to be in concurrence with section 2B.13 of the MUTCD. The 25 mph speed limit was obtained by a 5 mph reduction of the critical speed of 30mph due to the number of access points, reported collision experience, and pedestrian activity as described in Section 2B.13 of the MUTCD. This recommendation was discussed with the California Highway Patrol and they are in concurrence with this recommendation. c: CHP
File
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 77 832

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.8.2 – Justification Memo Sample 2
M e m o r a n d u m
To: XXXXX Date: MMDD, YYYY
District Director OR Deputy District Director
Caltrans District X
From: XXXXX
District X Traffic Operations Engineer
Traffic Operations

SIGNATURE
Subject: US 395 Speed Limit
In accordance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) sections 22348-22366, the 2006 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Caltrans Policy Directive 09- 04, an engineering and traffic survey was conducted from postmile (PM) 113.35 to PM 118.49, in and near Bishop, on US 395 in Inyo County in October 2009.

The following addresses Page 1 of 6 from the October 2009 speed study. The limits of page 1 are from the 65 mile per hour sign just south of Golf Club Drive (PM 113.35) to Schober Lane (PM 114.38.) This area is the transition zone from 65 mph to 45 mph.

The current roadside development on the east side of US 395 is rural residential and ranch land. The west side of US 395 is the Bishop Country Club Golf Course. The most recent 36 month accident history shows 7 total accidents. The accident rate is lower than the statewide average for this type of facility. “Failure to Yield” and “Improper Turn” were the most common primary collision factors.

It is Caltrans practice to step down speed limits approaching lower speed zones in 1500 to 2500 foot intervals and 5 to10 mph increments. This transition zone meets these criteria.
c: CHP
File

Page 78 ends

833

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
B.9 – Letter to CHP Extending Survey to 10 Years

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 9
RIGHT CLICK [HERE] FOR ADDRESSES
PHONE (559) XXX-XXXX
FAX (559) XXX-XXXX
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

MMDD, YYYY
Lieutenant name
California Highway Patrol
100 Abc Way
Town, CA XXXXX
Dear Lieutenant Name:

This letter is to inform you that the Traffic Operations Office of Caltrans District X has reviewed the speed zone survey for Highway XX from Postmile XX to XX, Zone #XX in and near the city of XXXXXX.

This letter documents the extension of the E&TS to 10 years. It has been determined that no significant changes have occurred within the limits of the Speed Zone. The existing 30 mph zone is valid and the old order will continue in effect until the dates as follows: Route XXX – P.M. R17.81 – R22.22 (30 mph) April 15, 2017. If you have any additional questions or concerns about this speed zone, please call Name at (XXX) XXXXXXX.

Sincerely,
Name
Title
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 79 834

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Appendix C – Glossary
When used in this manual, the following terms have the meanings shown below.

Advisory Speeds
Advisory speeds are determined primarily by physical and design characteristics of the roadway and/or a Ball-banking test. The setting of regulatory speeds, while also affected by physical and design factors, is determined in large part by existing free flow traffic speeds. Advisory speeds give motorists an advance warning of roadway design speeds. It is not a Prima Facie speed limit, is not an enforceable speed limit and is not based on the 85th percentile speed. R2-1 signs are not used to display the Advisory speed, typically W1 thru W4 warning signs are used.

Business District
Section 235 states that a business district is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and shall qualify the definitions in Sections 235 and 515:
(a) No building shall be regarded unless its entrance faces the highway and the front of the building is within 75 feet of the roadway.
(b) Where a highway is physically divided into two or more roadways only those buildings facing each roadway separately shall be regarded for the purpose of determining whether the roadway is within a district.
(c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures. (d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a district regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property.

Construction Zone
When authorized work is done in the roadway, ramps or recovery zone that affects motorists.

Page 80 ends

835

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Decision Zone
On a high-speed approach to a signalized intersection (over 35mph), there is a length of roadway in advance of the intersection, commonly referred to as the “decision zone”, wherein drivers may be indecisive and respond differently to the onset of the yellow signal indication. When in the zone at the onset of yellow, some drivers may stop abruptly while others may decide not to stop, and perhaps even accelerate through the intersection. Such variation in driver behavior is conducive to the occurrence of collisions on the intersection approach. In some cases, drivers’ decisions to proceed through the intersection at the onset of yellow may cause a collision with vehicles on conflicting phases.

The most common locations for this area are:

1. When a poor or non-compliant E&TS is performed

2. When a speed is reduced well below the 85th percentile

3. When the posted speed is below the 50th percentile
The yellow interval in traffic signal timing is designed to allow drivers to decide either to stop or to drive through the intersection before the following red interval begins. When the speed and the location of the vehicle is such that the driver cannot stop and also cannot drive through in time, the vehicle is said to be in a dilemma zone. For a fixed speed v, there is a minimum distance before the vehicle can stop (the stopping sight distance), and there is a maximum distance that the vehicle can travel through during the yellow interval (the clearing distance). If the vehicle’s current distance to the intersection is shorter than the stopping sight distance but longer than the clearing distance, then it is in the dilemma zone. The greater the difference between the stopping sight distance and the clearing distance, the bigger the dilemma zone. See FHWA studies OH-2001/12 and Federal House of the Majority Leader Report from 2001.

Divided Highway
The definition of divided highway must be inferred from CVC Section 21651(a). It states:
“Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway…” Engineer
A Professional Civil or Traffic Engineer licensed in the State of California and recognized by the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Engineering Judgment
The evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, experience, education, discretion, Standards, Guidance, and practices for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. Engineering judgment shall be exercised by a Professional Civil Engineer Licensed in the State of California or by an individual working under the supervision of a Professional Engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer.

Engineering Study
The comprehensive analysis and evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, engineering judgment, experience, education, discretion, Standards, Guidance, and practices as contained in this Manual and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. An engineering study shall be performed by a Professional Engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of a Professional Engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. An engineering study shall be documented.

Engineering and Traffic Survey or E&TS
The complete package includes:
(1) A cover sheet / title page.
(2) A signature / P.E. stamp / acceptance with the effective date. (3) Justification / summary of finding including the consultation of local law enforcement and engineering officials.
(4) Raw accident data such as TSAR or Table B summary page for a 3 year history for comparison with average or similar intersections.
(5) Vehicle Speed Survey sheets for each area.
(6) A declaration or order or ordinance approving the lowering from 55mph or 65mph (State roads) or raising from 25mph (local and county streets). (7) The Strip map.

These are the minimum documents in an E&TS. For a public document requests or when someone is contesting a ticket, the accident data can be omitted if the speed limit was not reduced because of accident data. See TOPD 11-05 for the release of records policy.

Page 82 ends

837

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Free Flow
A condition of traffic where a vehicle’s speed is not being influenced by anything other than the geometry of the roadway. Some of the conditions that exist in a Free Flow state are:
• Minimum 5 second gap between vehicles as the Highway Capacity manual defines delay as a percentage of vehicle headways less than or equal to 5 seconds. • Appropriate distance for the vehicle to reach a steady velocity not influenced by start-up or slow-down speeds due to traffic signals, stop signs, or other traffic control devices.
• Not influenced by slow vehicles such as trucks or busses. • Not influenced by enforcement or the perception of enforcement. • Not influenced by construction or closures.
• Not influenced by inclement weather conditions.
• Not influence by a special event or the effects of that special event.

Prevailing speeds
The free flow speeds of vehicles on a roadway commonly collected in a Spot Speed Survey and used to determine the 85th percentile speed.

Prima Facie
A speed limit is Prima Facie when predetermined by statute, zoning, and local ordinance for areas such as schools, police, and fire stations; or once an agency has completed an E&TS and determined that 65 mph/55 mph is not safe and reasonable for the orderly movement of traffic, has determined an appropriate speed, and that appropriate speed has been posted on a R2-1 sign in the appropriate location. All speed limits in compliance with the CVC, established standards and procedures, and posted on regulatory signing (R2-1), are Prima Facie. A sign displaying a speed limit that has not been established by ordinance, code, or statute, nor has been reduced from the maximum speed by a proper and complete E&TS, is neither Prima Facie nor is it an official traffic control device.

Residence District
CVC Section 515 states a residence district is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists. All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Restricted Speed Zone
A length of roadway that has a speed limit set by E&TS below the statutory or prima facie maximum.

Roadside development
The area directly adjacent to the roadway. Examples are parks, residential or business districts, etc. These areas are typically zoned by local agencies. Studies such as FHWA—RD-98-154 show roadside development is the second most important factor when setting speed limits, behind only the 85th percentile speed.

Speed
The term “speed” is used in a number of applications:
(a) Advisory Speed - a recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a section of highway based on the highway design, operating characteristics, and (noun) conditions.
(b) Average Speed - the summation of the instantaneous or spot-measured speeds at a specific location of vehicles divided by the number of vehicles observed. (c) Design Speed - a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway.
(d) 85th Percentile Speed - the speed at or below which 85 percent of Free Flow vehicles travel. 85th percentile speed is always expressed as a whole number without decimal. The 85th percentile speed is recognized as a “safe and reasonable speed” for motorists to be traveling in normal conditions. May also be referred to as critical speed.
(e) Operating Speed - the speed at which a typical vehicle or the overall traffic operates. Operating speed might be defined with speed values such as the average, pace, critical or 85th percentile speeds.
(f) Pace Speed - the 10 mph increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles.
(g) Posted Speed - the speed limit shown on Speed Limit signs (R2-1). (h) Statutory Speed - a speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional, and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown on Speed Limit signs.

Speed Limit
The maximum or posted speed allowed on a section of highway as established by law.

Page 84 ends

839

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Speed Zone
A length of roadway selected for the measurement of free flow vehicles based on similar roadside development, number of lanes, zoning, and other common features. Usually includes one speed limit for a particular length of roadway.

Spot Speed Survey
The part of the E&TS that specifically refers to the measurement and collection of vehicle speeds of free flow traffic at a specific location.

Strip map
A plan view, aerial photo, or schematic drawing of the speed zone area with a legend and a profile plot of the 85th percentile, the lower end of the pace, the existing and proposed speed zones. The strip map should also include local land uses, major traffic generators, traffic control devices, number of lanes, type and width of division strip, existing regulatory and warning signs, roadway width, traffic volumes and accident rates.

Undivided Highway
CVC Section 22349 states “A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction. Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.”
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 85 840

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Appendix D – References
D.1 – Federal Studies Summaries
D.1.1 – PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-98-154 July 1998
There is evidence that crash risk is lowest near the average speed of traffic and increases for vehicles traveling much faster or slower than average. The occurrence of a large number of crashes involving turning maneuver partly explains the increased risk for motorists traveling slower than average and confirms the importance of safety programs involving turn lanes, access control, grade separation, and other measures to reduce conflicts resulting from large differences in travel speeds.

When the consequences of crashes are taken into account, the risk of being involved in an injury crash is lowest for vehicles that travel near the median speed or slower and increases exponentially for motorists traveling much faster
In general, changing speed limits on low and moderate speed roads appears to have little or no effect on speed and thus little or no effect on crashes. This suggests that drivers travel at speeds they feel are reasonable and safe for the road and traffic regardless of the posted limit.

In a survey of speed zoning practices, Parker (1985) found that all states and most local agencies consider the speed of traffic in setting speed limits. The primary factors considered in engineering studies to set speed limits were, in order of their importance:
• 85th percentile speed.
• Type and amount of roadside development.
• Accident experience.
• Adjacent Limits.
• 10 mph pace (i.e., speed range that contains the largest percentage of vehicles). • Horizontal and vertical alignment.
• Design speed.
• Average test run speed.
• Pedestrians.

Page 86 ends

841

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
D.1.2 – Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084 October 1992
U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296
The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.

One primary reason for setting speed limits lower than speed considered safe and reasonable by the majority of motorists is based on the belief that lower speed limits reduced seeds and accidents. Also it has been frequently suggested that most motorists drive 5 to 10 mph (8 to 16 km/h) over the posted speed limit, so lower limits should be established to account for this condition.

Conversely, it is believed that raising the speed limit increases speeds and accidents. For example, following a severe accident, one of the most frequent requests made to highway jurisdictions is to lower the speed limit. These requests are founded on public knowledge that accident severity increases with increasing vehicle speed because in a collision, the amount of kinetic energy dissipated is proportional to the square of the velocity. Simply stated, when a vehicle is involved in a crash the higher the vehicle speed, the greater the chance of being seriously injured or killed. However, as noted by a number of researchers, the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
D.2 – Missouri Department of Transportation Study RI08-025 The RI08-025 study determined that although the variable speed limits had helped to reduce some congestion and crashes, enforcement had been minimal and the public was either angry or confused about the potential of enforcement.

The complete study is available at the following location:
http://library.modot.mo.gov/RDT/reports/Ri08025/or11014rpt.pdf D.3 – California Department of Motor Vehicles Driver Hand Book The California Driver Handbook is available at the following location:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/pubs.htm
D.4 – Automobile Club of Southern California
The AAA brochure Effective Speed Zoning is available at the following location:
www.AAA.com/roadahead
D.5 – Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITE information on Speed Zoning can be found at this location:
http://www.ite.org/standards/speed_zoning.pdf
D.6 – Transportation Research Board
The TRB has published numerous studies on speed zoning and speed limits. TRB documents can be viewed by searching the TRB this location: http://www.trb.org/Main/Home.aspx D.7 – California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices can be found at this location:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/camutcd/camutcd-rev4

Page 88 ends

843

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
This page has intentionally been left blank.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
Appendix E – California Vehicle Code Sections
This list includes section titles of CVC which relate to speed limits and speed limit signs.

CVC Section 235: Business District
CVC Section 240: Business and residence Districts: Determination CVC Section 440: Official Traffic Control Device
CVC Section 515: Residence District
CVC Section 627: Engineering and Traffic Survey
CVC Section 21100: Local Regulation Scope
CVC Section 21100.5: Local Regulation Scope: City on a Natural Island CVC Section 21107.9: Local Regulation within Mobilehome Parks CVC Section 21115: Local Regulation Regarding the Use of Golf Carts on Highways CVC Section 21350: Placement of Traffic Control Devices by Department of Transportation CVC Section 21351: Placement of Traffic Control Devices by Local Authorities CVS Section 21351.3: Use of Units of Measurement by Local Regulation CVC Section 21353: Local Regulation Affecting State Highway Traffic CVC Section 21357: Speed Signs for Business or Residence Districts CVC Section 21358: Speed Signs at District Boundaries
CVC Section 21359: Speed Signs for Special Areas
CVC Section 21367: Traffic Control: Highway Construction CVC Section 21369: Speed Signs Ratified
CVC Section 21370: Regulation of Traffic: Construction Zone CVC Section 21400: Department of Transportation General Practices Regarding Traffic Control Devices
CVC Section 22348: Excessive Speed and Designated Lane Use CVC Section 22349: Maximum Speed Limit
CVC Section 22350: Basic Speed Law

Page 90 ends

845

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
CVC Section 22351: Speed Law Violations
CVC Section 22352: Prima Facie Speed Limits
CVC Section 22353: City of Norco: Equestrian Safety
CVC Section 22354: Decrease of State Highway Speed Limits CVC Section 22354.5: Speed Limit Change: Consultation and Consideration Requirements CVC Section 22355: Variable Speed Limits
CVC Section 22356: Increase of Freeway Speed Limit to 70 Miles Per Hour CVC Section 22357: Increase of Local Speed Limits to 65 Miles Per Hour CVC Section 22357.1: Decrease Near Children's Playgrounds CVC Section 22358: Decrease of Local Speed Limits
CVC Section 22358.3: Decrease on Narrow Street
CVC Section 22358.4: Decrease of Local Limits Near Schools or Senior Centers CVC Section 22358.5: Downward Speed Zoning
CVC Section 22359: Boundary Line Streets
CVC Section 22360: Maximum Speed Limit on Local Highway Linking Districts CVC Section 22361: Multiple-Lane Highways
CVC Section 22362: Speed Limit Where Persons at Work
CVC Section 22363: Restrictions Because of Snow or Ice Conditions CVC Section 22364: Lane Speed Limits
CVC Section 22365: Prima Facie Speed Limit: South Coast Air Quality Management District:

Local Ordinances
CVC Section 22366: Notice of Authorization to Increase Maximum Speed Limit CVC Section 22400: Minimum Speed Law
CVC Section 22401: Traffic Signals
CVC Section 22402: Bridges and Structures
CVC Section 22403: Local Bridges and Structures
Copyright 2020 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Page 91 846

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits
CVC Section 22404: Revision of Speed Limit on Bridges and Structures CVC Section 22405: Violations on Bridges and Structures CVC Section 22406: Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles CVC Section 22406.1: Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver: Penalties CVC Section 22406.5: Tank Vehicle Driver Penalties
CVC Section 22407: Decreasing Truck Speed Limit
CVC Section 22409: Solid Tire
CVC Section 22410: Metal Tires
CVC Section 22411: Maximum Speed for Motorized Scooters CVC Section 22413: Decreasing Speed Limit on Grades
CVC Section 38310: Speed Laws for Off-Highway Vehicles
CVC Section 40800: Vehicle and Uniform Used by Officers CVC Section 40801: Speed Trap Prohibition
CVC Section 40802: Speed Traps
CVC Section 40803: Speed Trap Evidence
CVC Section 40804: Testimony Based on Speed Trap
CVC Section 40805: Admission of Speed Trap Evidence
CVC Section 40806: Police Reports
CVC Section 40807: Use of Evidence Regarding Departmental Action CVC Section 40808: Speed Trap Evidence
CVC Section 41100: Speed Restriction Signs
CVC Section 41101: Official Signs and Traffic Control Devices

Page 92 ends

847
Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes
Involving Passenger Vehicles
Safety Study
NTSB/SS-17/01
PB2017-102341 National
Transportation
Safety Board
848
NTSB/SS-17/01
PB2017-102341
Notation 56821
Adopted July 25, 2017
Safety Study
Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes
Involving Passenger Vehicles
National
Transportation
Safety Board
490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594
849
National Transportation Safety Board. 2017. Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles. Safety Study NTSB/SS-17/01. Washington, DC.

Abstract: In this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examines causes of and trends in speeding-related passenger vehicle crashes and countermeasures to prevent these crashes. The countermeasures presented represent several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding-related crashes. They do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding-related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes.

The NTSB focused on the following five safety issues pertaining to the effective application of proven and emerging countermeasures for speeding: (1) speed limits, (2) data-driven approaches for speed enforcement, (3) automated speed enforcement, (4) intelligent speed adaptation, and (5) national leadership.

As a result of this safety study, the NTSB makes recommendations to the US Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, 50 states, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The NTSB makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and statistical reviews.

The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident; rather, as specified by NTSB regulation, “accident/incident investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties … and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person.” 49 C.F.R. § 831.4. Assignment of fault or legal liability is not relevant to the NTSB’s statutory mission to improve transportation safety by investigating accidents and incidents and issuing safety recommendations. In addition, statutory language prohibits the admission into evidence or use of any part of an NTSB report related to an accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b).

For more detailed background information on this report, visit http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dms.html and search for NTSB accident ID DCA15SS002. Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Internet at http://www.ntsb.gov. Other information about available publications also may be obtained from the website or by contacting:

National Transportation Safety Board
Records Management Division, CIO-40
490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594
(800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551
NTSB publications may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service. To purchase this publication, order product number PB2017-102341 from:

National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Rd.

Alexandria, VA 22312
(800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000
http://www.ntis.gov/
850
NTSB Safety Study
iii
Contents
Figures.............................................................................................................................................v Tables............................................................................................................................................ vi Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Goals.........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope of the Study....................................................................................................................1

1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................1

1.3.1 Literature Survey ...........................................................................................................2

1.3.2 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................2

1.3.3 Stakeholder Interviews...................................................................................................2

1.4 Previous NTSB Investigations and Recommendations............................................................3 2 Speeding....................................................................................................................................6

2.1 Definitions................................................................................................................................6

2.2 Scope of the Problem ...............................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Fatalities and Injuries.....................................................................................................8

2.2.2 Vehicle Types ................................................................................................................9

2.3 Risks.......................................................................................................................................10

2.3.1 Injury Severity .............................................................................................................10

2.3.2 Crash Involvement.......................................................................................................11

2.4 Characteristics of Speeding-Related Crashes.........................................................................13

2.4.1 Road Types and Land Use ...........................................................................................13

2.4.2 Alcohol-Impaired Driving ...........................................................................................15

2.4.3 Driver Age ...................................................................................................................16

2.5 Attitudes Toward Speeding....................................................................................................17

2.6 Countermeasures....................................................................................................................18

2.7 National, State, and Local Roles............................................................................................19 3 Safety Issues............................................................................................................................21

3.1 Speed Limits...........................................................................................................................21

3.1.1 Background..................................................................................................................21

3.1.2 Engineering Studies, Speed Surveys, and the 85th Percentile Speed ..........................23

3.1.3 Unintended Consequences of Using the 85th Percentile Speed ..................................24

3.1.4 Expert System..............................................................................................................26

3.1.5 Vulnerable Road Users on Urban Roads.....................................................................27

3.1.6 Rethinking How to Set Speed Limits...........................................................................29

3.2 Data-Driven Approaches for Speed Enforcement..................................................................30

3.2.1 Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety ................................................30

3.2.2 Limitations of Speeding-Related Crash Data ..............................................................32

3.3 Automated Speed Enforcement..............................................................................................34 851
NTSB Safety Study
iv

3.3.1 Historical and Current Usage.......................................................................................35

3.3.2 Effectiveness................................................................................................................36

3.3.3 Stakeholder Perceptions...............................................................................................38

3.3.4 Enabling Legislation ....................................................................................................39

3.3.5 Best Practices...............................................................................................................41

3.3.6 Point-to-Point Enforcement .........................................................................................42

3.4 Intelligent Speed Adaptation ..................................................................................................43

3.4.1 Current Passenger Vehicle Implementations...............................................................44

3.4.2 Effectiveness................................................................................................................45

3.4.3 Stakeholder Perceptions...............................................................................................46

3.4.4 Performance and Equipage ..........................................................................................46

3.5 National Leadership ...............................................................................................................47

3.5.1 Traffic Safety Campaigns and Public Awareness........................................................48

3.5.2 Funding for Speed Management Programs..................................................................51

3.5.3 DOT Cross-Agency Coordination ...............................................................................52 4 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................54

4.1 Findings..................................................................................................................................54 5 Recommendations..................................................................................................................56 Board Member Statement...........................................................................................................59 Appendixes....................................................................................................................................61 Appendix A: Speeding-Related National Transportation Safety Board Investigations.................61 Appendix B: Road Function Classifications..................................................................................64 Appendix C: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Speed Limit Guidance......................68 Appendix D: Speeding Categories.................................................................................................71 Appendix E: State Laws Regarding Automated Speed Enforcement............................................72 References.....................................................................................................................................74 852
NTSB Safety Study
v
Figures
Figure 1. Speeding vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes, by type, 2014........................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2. Percent of passenger vehicle occupants sustaining serious or fatal injuries in speeding-related and all crashes, by reported travel speed, 2014............................................. 10 Figure 3. Fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by reported speed limit and land use, 2014................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4. Fatalities involving passenger vehicles, by crash factors, 2014.................................... 15 Figure 5. Age distribution of speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, all passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, and licensed drivers, 2014 ......................................... 16 Figure 6. Drivers responding that speeding is a threat to personal safety, by road type, 2015...................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7. Maximum speed limits by state and the District of Columbia in 2016 and changes in maximum speed limits from 2012 to 2016 ................................................................. 25 Figure 8. Passenger vehicles in fatal crashes, by speeding category, 2014 .................................. 32 Figure 9. US communities with ASE programs, by year.............................................................. 36 853
NTSB Safety Study
vi
Tables
Table 1. Total and speeding-related traffic fatalities, 2005-2014................................................... 7 Table 2. Estimated injuries in speeding-related crashes, by person type and injury severity, 2014.................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Number and percent of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by road type and land use, 2014 .................................................................................... 13 Table 4. Examples of speeding countermeasures......................................................................... 18 Table 5. Federal-aid programs for traffic safety ........................................................................... 20 Table 6. AASHTO’s recommended minimum design speeds and typical posted speed limits, by road type ............................................................................................................. 22 Table 7. ASE state laws and active programs as of April 2017.................................................... 40 Table 8. 2016 NHTSA Traffic Safety Marketing events.............................................................. 49 Table 9. Federal funds allocated to states for behavioral traffic safety programs, fiscal year 2016............................................................................................................................. 51 Table 10. Status of DOT Speed Management Program Plan actions as of December 2016 ............................................................................................................................. 53 854
NTSB Safety Study
vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASE automated speed enforcement
BAC blood alcohol concentration
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DDACTS Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety DOT US Department of Transportation
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
GES General Estimates System
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
GIS geographic information system
GPS global positioning system
HVE high-visibility enforcement
IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police
IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
ISA intelligent speed adaptation
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
km/h kilometers per hour
LIDAR light detection and ranging
MADD Mothers Against Drunk Driving
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
855
NTSB Safety Study
viii
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
MV PICCS Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States NASS National Automotive Sampling System
NCAP New Car Assessment Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NSA National Sheriffs’ Association
NSC National Safety Council
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SCOHTS Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety
TSM Traffic Safety Marketing
USC United States Code
VMT vehicle miles traveled
856
NTSB Safety Study
ix
Executive Summary
Speeding—exceeding a speed limit or driving too fast for conditions—is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. In this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examines causes of and trends in speeding-related passenger vehicle crashes and countermeasures to prevent these crashes.

Why the NTSB Did This Study
From 2005 through 2014, crashes in which a law enforcement officer indicated a vehicle’s speed was a factor resulted in 112,580 fatalities, representing 31% of all traffic fatalities. Speeding or speed has been cited as a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor in 49 major NTSB highway accident investigations since 1967. Although recent speeding-related NTSB investigations have primarily involved large trucks and buses, most speeding-related crashes involve speeding passenger vehicles. In 2014, passenger vehicles constituted 77% of speeding vehicles involved in fatal crashes, and 78% of all speeding-related fatalities involved a speeding passenger vehicle. This study leverages prior NTSB investigations, together with other research, to address the national safety issue of speeding among passenger vehicle drivers.

In this study, the NTSB used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to summarize the risks of speeding, describe the scope of the problem, and promote the use of proven and emerging speeding countermeasures. This included a literature survey; analyses of speeding-related crash data; and interviews with national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders. The stakeholders were representatives from transportation and highway safety agencies, law enforcement agencies, automobile manufacturers, research institutions, advocacy groups, equipment vendors, personal auto insurance providers, and professional associations.

This study assessed speeding among passenger vehicle drivers in a broad sense, as a factor that contributes to crashes and injury severity. Several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding-related crashes are discussed. The solutions do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding-related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes.

What the NTSB Found
Speed—and therefore speeding—increases crash risk in two ways: (1) it increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash, and (2) it increases the severity of injuries sustained by all road users in a crash.

The relationship between speed and crash involvement is complex, and it is affected by factors such as road type, driver age, alcohol impairment, and roadway characteristics like curvature, grade, width, and adjacent land use. In contrast, the relationship between speed and injury severity is consistent and direct. Higher vehicle speeds lead to larger changes in velocity in a crash, and these velocity changes are closely linked to injury severity. This relationship is especially critical for pedestrians involved in a motor vehicle crash, due to their lack of protection. 857
NTSB Safety Study
x
Typically, speed limits are set by statute, but adjustments to statutory speed limits are generally based on the observed operating speeds for each road segment—specifically, the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Raising speed limits to match the 85th percentile speed can result in unintended consequences. It may lead to higher operating speeds, and thus a higher 85th percentile speed. In general, there is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate for all road types. Alternative approaches and expert systems for setting speed limits are available, which incorporate factors such as crash history and the presence of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians.

Speed limits must be enforced to be effective, and data-driven, high-visibility enforcement is an efficient way to use law enforcement resources. The success of data-driven speed enforcement programs depends on the ability to measure and communicate their effectiveness.

However, law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes is inconsistent, which leads to underreporting of speeding-related crashes. This underreporting leads stakeholders and the public to underestimate the overall scope of speeding as a traffic safety issue nationally and hinders the effective implementation of data-driven speed enforcement programs locally.

Automated speed enforcement (ASE) is also widely acknowledged as an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries. However, only 14 states and the District of Columbia use it. Many states have laws that prohibit or place operational restrictions on ASE, and federal guidelines for ASE are outdated and not well known among ASE program administrators. Point-to-point enforcement, which is based on the average speed of a vehicle between two points, can be used on roadway segments many miles long. This type of ASE has had recent success in other countries, but it is not currently used in the United States.

Vehicle technologies can also be effective at reducing speeding. Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) uses an onboard global positioning system or road sign-detecting camera to determine the speed limit; it then warns drivers when they exceed the speed limit, or prevents drivers from exceeding the speed limit by electronically limiting the speed of the vehicle. Although passenger vehicle manufacturers are increasingly equipping their vehicles with technologies relevant to speeding, these technologies often are not standard features and require the purchase of certain option packages. New car safety rating systems are one effective way to incentivize the manufacture and purchase of passenger vehicles with advanced safety systems such as ISA.

Finally, the current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety issue is lower than warranted. Current federal-aid programs do not ensure that states fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries.

Also, unlike other traffic safety issues with a similar impact (such as alcohol-impaired driving) there are no nationwide programs to increase public awareness of the risks of speeding. Although the US Department of Transportation (DOT) has established a multi-agency team to coordinate speeding-related work throughout the DOT, this team’s work plan does not include means to ensure that the planned actions are completed in a timely manner. 858
NTSB Safety Study
xi
Recommendations
As a result of this safety study, the NTSB makes recommendations to the US Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, 50 states, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association. 859
NTSB Safety Study
1 1 Introduction
Speeding—exceeding a speed limit or driving too fast for conditions—is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle crashes in the United States (Blincoe and others 2015). Over the past 15 years, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has identified speeding as a safety issue among drivers of heavy vehicles (NTSB 2012), in work zones (NTSB 2015), and at locations with site specific hazards (NTSB 2006; NTSB 2005a; NTSB 2005b). However, the NTSB has not often addressed this pervasive safety issue among passenger vehicle drivers.1 This study examines speeding-related crashes involving passenger vehicles and countermeasures to prevent these crashes in the United States.2

1.1 Goals
The goals of this study are to summarize the risks of speeding, describe the scope of the problem, and promote the use of proven and emerging speeding countermeasures. In particular, this study focuses on countermeasures addressing passenger vehicle driver behavior.

1.2 Scope of the Study
This study assessed speeding among passenger vehicle drivers in a broad sense, as a factor that contributes to crashes and injury severity. Other crash factors, environmental conditions, and driver characteristics are known to be associated with speeding-related crashes, such as alcohol impairment, nighttime driving, and young male drivers (Council and others 2010; Neuner and others 2016). Some of these features of speeding-related crashes are discussed to highlight misconceptions about speeding and to illustrate the complexity of the relationship between speed and crash risk, but this study generally does not consider the many other factors that cause crashes and crash-related injuries, such as distraction or drug impairment. The countermeasures presented in this study represent several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding-related crashes.

They do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding-related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes.

1.3 Methodology
The NTSB used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods for this study, including a literature survey; analyses of speeding-related crash data; and interviews with national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders.

1 As defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), passenger vehicles include automobiles, utility vehicles, and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating less than or equal to 10,000 pounds. For a detailed list of vehicle types, refer to appendix C of the FARS Analytical User’s Manual (NHTSA 2015a). 2 As defined by NHTSA, a speeding-related crash is a crash in which the speed of at least one vehicle was related to the crash, as indicated “by the police issuing a citation for a speed offense, by their indicating a related or contributing factor, or through a description in the narrative” (NHTSA 2016a). The national crash databases used for this study do not indicate the probable cause of a crash. 860
NTSB Safety Study
2 1.3.1 Literature Survey
To identify speeding countermeasures with demonstrated effectiveness, the NTSB conducted a literature survey of relevant recent and foundational US studies. The NTSB also reviewed recent studies performed in other countries to identify successful speeding countermeasures. Information gathered from the literature survey also helped the NTSB develop topics for discussion with stakeholders.

1.3.2 Data Analysis
The NTSB analyzed data from the following national databases to summarize the scope of the speeding problem, illustrate the variability of speeding-related crashes, and confirm viewpoints expressed in stakeholder interviews:
• The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census of fatal motor vehicle crashes occurring on US public roads since 1975, which is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and based on data extracted from police crash reports (NHTSA 2015a).
• The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) is a nationally representative sample of fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle crashes occurring on US public roads since 1988. Like FARS, NASS GES is also maintained by NHTSA and based on police crash reports (NHTSA 2015b).

The majority of the analyses in section 2 used 2014 FARS data, as these were the most recent data available when the NTSB conducted this study.

1.3.3 Stakeholder Interviews
The NTSB conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from the following traffic safety stakeholder organizations.
3 The purpose of these interviews was to identify areas of common concern among stakeholders, including obstacles to the effective implementation of speeding countermeasures.
• Federal Government: The NTSB interviewed members of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Speed Management Team (which consists of subject matter experts within NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA]) and the NHTSA Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection. Interview topics included current and recently completed speeding-related research projects, public awareness programs, and the federal role in addressing speeding.
• State Government: The NTSB interviewed employees of five state transportation departments, seven state highway safety offices, one office of the attorney general, and one public health department. Interview topics included methods for setting speed limits, engineering countermeasures, enforcement, federal and state highway safety grant program

3 Semi-structured interviews primarily consist of open-ended questions. Interview topics and potential questions are developed beforehand. However, the order and wording of the questions may vary among interview subjects, and questions may be added as the interview progresses to explore topics in greater detail (Britten 2006, 12-20). 861
NTSB Safety Study
3 administration, the role of the courts, and procedures for recording and analyzing crash data.
• State Law Enforcement: The NTSB interviewed officers from five different state law enforcement agencies.4 Most of the officers were in a supervisory role and were familiar with statewide speed enforcement activities. Interview topics included in-person and automated speed enforcement (ASE); the use of data to target enforcement; and coordination with other state agencies, states, and localities. • Local Government: The NTSB interviewed employees of seven city transportation departments, one planning and zoning department, and one public health department.

Interview topics included methods for setting speed limits, engineering countermeasures, enforcement, coordination with state and federal agencies, the impact of speeding on vulnerable road users such as bicyclists and pedestrians, and local initiatives to reduce traffic fatalities.
• Local Law Enforcement: The NTSB interviewed officers from nine city and county law enforcement agencies. The interviews included supervisors of traffic enforcement divisions (for those departments with discrete traffic enforcement divisions), officers responsible for traffic enforcement, and data analysts. Interview topics included in-person enforcement and ASE, the use of data to target enforcement, the role of speed enforcement within other law enforcement duties, and coordination with other state and local agencies. • Automobile Manufacturers: The NTSB interviewed four US automobile manufacturers.

Interview topics included speeding-related vehicle technologies and technologies designed to prevent unsafe behaviors by teen drivers.

The NTSB also interviewed representatives from traffic safety research institutions, advocacy groups, equipment vendors, personal auto insurance providers, and professional associations.

The NTSB selected stakeholders for interviews with a goal of gathering varied input, in terms of both geography (urban, suburban, and rural) and the types of countermeasures used. For example, some cities had extensive automated enforcement programs, whereas others had a strong focus on engineering countermeasures. Likewise, the automobile manufacturers selected for interviews offered varying levels of automation and driver support systems in their vehicles.

Information gathered from the stakeholder interviews helped the NTSB identify the safety issues examined in this study.

1.4 Previous NTSB Investigations and Recommendations
Speeding or speed has been cited as a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor in 49 major NTSB highway accident investigations, including the NTSB’s first highway accident investigation, which involved a series of collisions among 11 vehicles in dense fog in Joliet, Illinois, on August 12, 1967 (NTSB 1967).5 The NTSB conducts major highway accident investigations when the accident involves an issue related to a current NTSB safety study or special

4 Throughout the remainder of this report, the term officer will be used to refer to law enforcement officers in local police, county sheriff, constable, state police, state patrol, and highway patrol agencies. 5 Appendix A provides a complete list of NTSB major highway accident investigations in which speeding or speed was found to be a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor. 862
NTSB Safety Study
4 investigation, has a significant impact on the public confidence or highway safety, or is determined by the NTSB to be catastrophic. Generally, NTSB highway investigations focus on commercial vehicles; as a result, most of the recent speeding-related NTSB investigations have primarily involved large trucks and buses. The following are examples of recent NTSB accident investigations that resulted in speeding-related safety recommendations. Each of these safety recommendations is currently classified by the NTSB as having an acceptable status, indicating that planned or completed actions satisfy the intent of the recommendation.

On March 12, 2011, in New York City, New York, a motorcoach departed from interstate highway travel lanes, struck a guardrail, overturned, and struck a highway signpost, resulting in 15 fatalities. The motorcoach was traveling 64 mph on a highway with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. As a result of its investigation, the NTSB identified heavy vehicle speed limiters as a safety issue and issued recommendations to NHTSA to develop performance standards for advanced speed limiting technology for heavy vehicles and to require this technology on newly manufactured heavy vehicles (NTSB 2012).6 These recommendations were later reiterated in the NTSB’s investigative report on a June 7, 2014, accident in Cranbury, New Jersey, in which a tractor-trailer struck the rear of a limo van at the end of a work zone traffic queue, resulting in one fatality. The NTSB found that the tractor-trailer was traveling 65 mph in a work zone with a posted speed limit of 45 mph, and the traffic in the queue had slowed to less than 10 mph. The NTSB identified reducing vehicle speeds in work zones as a safety issue in this accident (NTSB 2015).

On May 1, 2003, a Mercedes Benz CLK320 crossed a raised highway median in Linden, New Jersey, and struck a Ford Taurus head-on, resulting in six fatalities. The NTSB identified speed enforcement as a safety issue and issued a recommendation to the city of Linden to develop a speed enforcement plan for the road segment on which the accident occurred (NTSB 2006).7 On February 14, 2003, in Hewitt, Texas, the driver of a motorcoach was unable to maintain control of the vehicle while traveling on Interstate 35 in overcast weather with reduced visibility and heavy rain. The motorcoach crossed the interstate highway median and collided with a Chevrolet Suburban, resulting in seven fatalities. Among the safety issues identified in the NTSB investigation were (1) sight distance and speed as they relate to roadway design, and (2) the need to better identify areas with a high risk of wet weather accidents and implement the necessary roadway improvements. The NTSB recommended that the FHWA issue guidance for the use of variable speed limits in wet weather at locations where the operating speed exceeds the design speed and the stopping distance exceeds the available sight distance. The NTSB also recommended

6 The motorcoach in this accident was equipped with a fixed speed limiter, but because it was set to 78 mph, it was ineffective at limiting the speed of the motorcoach to the posted speed limit at the accident location. NTSB Safety Recommendations H-12-20 (to develop performance standards) and H-12-21 (to require speed limiters) are currently classified “Open—Acceptable Response.” These recommendations and all NTSB recommendations referenced in this report as well as relevant excerpts of associated correspondence are available via the NTSB safety recommendations database.
7 NTSB Safety Recommendation H-06-14 is classified “Closed—Acceptable Action.” 863
NTSB Safety Study
5 that the Texas Department of Transportation install variable speed limit signs at such locations (NTSB 2005a).8
These examples illustrate that the NTSB has a long history of investigating individual speeding-related accidents, particularly involving bus and truck drivers. This study extends that prior work by addressing the national safety issue of speeding among passenger vehicle drivers.

As shown in section 2, these drivers are involved in the majority of speeding-related fatal crashes.9

8 NTSB Safety Recommendation H-05-14 (for the FHWA to issue guidance) is classified “Closed―Acceptable Action” and Safety Recommendation H-05-20 (for the Texas Department of Transportation to install variable speed limit signs) is currently classified “Open—Acceptable Response.” 9 A fatal crash is a crash in which there was at least one fatality. 864
NTSB Safety Study
6 2 Speeding
This section provides definitions of speeding, describes the scope of speeding as a traffic safety issue, examines the risks of speeding, and describes the characteristics of speeding-related crashes that are relevant to effective speeding countermeasures. Public attitudes toward speeding and the roles federal, state, and local governments play in addressing speeding are also discussed.

2.1 Definitions
The traffic safety community, including NHTSA, considers drivers to be speeding if their vehicles are traveling at a speed that (1) exceeds the speed limit or (2) is too fast for conditions (NHTSA 2013).10 The first definition (exceeds the speed limit) refers to legal speed limits—known as statutory speed limits—established by states for each road type.11 These limits generally apply to all roads of a given type even if no physical speed limit signage is present, but they can be superseded by speed limits posted for specific road segments. The second definition (too fast for conditions) is based on the basic speed law.
12 All states have a variation of this law, which typically requires drivers to operate at a speed that is reasonable and prudent, taking into account weather, road conditions, traffic, visibility, and other environmental conditions (Goodwin and others 2015).

10 The third category is racing (Goodwin and others 2015). Racing (on a roadway) is defined as “driving any vehicle in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, exhibition of speed or acceleration, or for the purpose of making a speed record” (NHTSA 2013). 11 (a) Some states may set statutory speed limits for cars and trucks differently. (b) Examples of road types include rural interstates, urban freeways, urban collectors, and local residential streets. These road types are also referred to as road (or highway) function classes. Appendix B provides descriptions of the FHWA road function classifications. 12 Basic speed law is also known as the basic speed rule. “This rule requires vehicle operators to drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. As a corollary to this rule, State laws usually provide that every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or highway conditions” (NHTSA 2013).
865
NTSB Safety Study
7 2.2 Scope of the Problem
From 2005 through 2014, FARS data show that speeding-related crashes accounted for 112,580 fatalities (see table 1). Although the annual numbers of total traffic fatalities and speeding-related fatalities both decreased during this period, speeding-related fatalities have consistently accounted for about 31% of all traffic fatalities (NCSA 2016a; NCSA 2017). During the same period, there were 112,948 traffic fatalities involving alcohol-impaired driving, which represents 31% of all traffic fatalities (NCSA 2015; NCSA 2016b). 13 Thus, speeding-related
fatalities represent a large portion of the total traffic fatalities in the United States; this portion is comparable to that attributed to alcohol-impaired driving.

Table 1. Total and speeding-related traffic fatalities, 2005-2014 Year Total Fatalities Speeding-Related Fatalities % Speeding Related 2005 43,510 13,583 31.2
2006 42,708 13,609 31.9
2007 41,259 13,140 31.8
2008 37,423 11,767 31.4
2009 33,808 10,664 31.5
2010 32,999 10,508 31.8
2011 32,479 10,001 30.8
2012 33,782 10,329 30.6
2013 32,894 9,696 29.5
2014 32,744 9,283 28.4
Total 363,606 112,580 31.0
Sources: NCSA 2016a; NCSA 2017

13 (a) The crash categories of “speeding-related” and “alcohol-impaired driving” are not mutually exclusive. From 2005 through 2014, FARS data show that 49,023 traffic fatalities involved both speeding and alcohol-impaired driving. The overlap of these two categories is addressed in section 2.4.2. (b) The analyses presented in this study used NHTSA data, in which drivers are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) are 0.08 gram per deciliter or higher.
866
NTSB Safety Study
8 2.2.1 Fatalities and Injuries
Of the 9,283 speeding-related fatalities in 2014, 5,933 (64%) were the drivers of the speeding vehicles; 1,835 (20%) were passengers in the speeding vehicles; 1,136 (12%) were occupants in other vehicles; 314 (3%) were pedestrians; and 46 (0.5%) were bicyclists, as shown in table 2. This table also includes NASS GES data indicating that an estimated 336,742 people sustained nonfatal injuries due to speeding in 2014. More than 40% of the people injured were occupants of non-speeding vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists. Therefore, speeding poses a significant risk of death and injury to not only the drivers and passengers of speeding vehicles but also other road users.

Table 2. Estimated injuries in speeding-related crashes, by person type and injury severity, 2014 Person Type
Fatala Seriousb Possible/Minorb Total Nonfatal
Injuries
Number % Number % Number % Number %
Drivers in
speeding vehicles 5,933 63.9 18,745 62.3 128,466 41.9 147,211 43.7 Passengers in
speeding vehicles 1,835 19.8 5,499 18.3 43,310 14.1 48,809 14.5 Occupants in
other vehicles 1,136 12.2 5,171 17.2 132,408 43.2 137,579 40.9 Pedestrians 314 3.4 510 1.7 1,285 0.4 1,795 0.5
Bicyclists 46 0.5 134 0.4 555 0.2 689 0.2
Other/Unknownc 19 0.2 24 0.1 633 0.2 657 0.2
Total 9,283 100.0 30,084 100.0 306,658 100.0 336,742 100.0 a Source: FARS
b Source: GES
c The fatal injuries category includes other non-occupants. The serious and possible/minor injuries categories include occupants of a motor vehicle not in transport, persons on personal conveyances, and persons in or on buildings. 867
NTSB Safety Study
9 2.2.2 Vehicle Types
In 2014, 8,393 speeding vehicles were involved in fatal crashes. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these vehicles by type. Of these speeding vehicles, 6,422 (77%) were passenger vehicles, which were involved in 6,369 fatal crashes, resulting in 7,273 fatalities. These fatalities represented 78% of all speeding-related fatalities in 2014. According to the FHWA, there were about 240 million registered passenger vehicles and 8 million motorcycles in 2014, which respectively represented 92% and 3% of the total number of registered vehicles. Buses and trucks represented 0.3% and 4% of the total, respectively. Figure 1 also shows that 1,548 speeding motorcycles (18% of all speeding vehicles) were involved in fatal crashes in 2014. This safety study focused on passenger vehicles, which constitute the majority of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes. Some of the countermeasures examined in this study are applicable to both passenger vehicles and other types of motor vehicles, including motorcycles.

Figure 1. Speeding vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes, by type, 2014 Passenger
Vehicles

76.5% (6,422)
Motorcycles

18.4% (1,548) Large Trucks

3.1% (263)
Other/Unknown

1.8% (154)
Buses

0.1% (6)
Source: FARS
868
NTSB Safety Study
10 2.3 Risks
Risk is quantified as the product of the likelihood of exposure to an adverse event and the consequence of such exposure. Countermeasures to improve traffic safety are used to reduce the likelihood of exposure (that is, crash involvement rates) and to mitigate the consequence (that is, injury severity).

2.3.1 Injury Severity
The severity of a crash, as typically measured in injury severity, is linked to the velocity change in a crash.14 As the speed prior to a crash increases, the velocity change in a crash also increases (TRB 1998). Therefore, higher vehicle speeds lead to larger changes in velocity, which, in turn, lead to higher injury severity in a crash. This relationship can be seen in figure 2, which uses 2014 NASS GES data to show the estimated percentage of passenger vehicle occupants involved in non-pedestrian single vehicle crashes who died or sustained serious injuries, as a function of reported vehicle speed.15 The slopes of the two curves shown in figure 2 indicate that occupants were more likely to experience serious injury at higher vehicle speeds when they were reported as speeding.

Figure 2. Percent of passenger vehicle occupants sustaining serious or fatal injuries in speeding-related and all crashes, by reported travel speed, 2014

14 Velocity change in a crash is also known as Delta V. 15 Vehicle speed in the NASS GES refers to the vehicle traveling speed prior to the crash as reported by the investigating officer. Therefore, it is reported, not measured, speed prior to the crash. This serves as the best estimate available of potential velocity change in a crash.

2.5%

4.4%

9.8%

1.6%

2.3%

4.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
21-40 41-60 ≥61
Percent of Vehicle Occupants with Serious
or Fatal Injuries in Single-Vehicle Crashes
Not Involving Pedestrians
Reported Travel Speed (mph) Source: NASS GES
Speeding Passenger Vehicles
Non-Speeding Passenger Vehicles
869
NTSB Safety Study
11 Other studies have also confirmed that as speed increases, so does injury severity. A study of sample crashes between 1980 and 1986 using NASS data (limited to passenger cars of model years 1980 and later) showed a statistically significant relationship between the fatality risk of drivers and velocity change in a crash. This relationship showed that as the velocity change in a crash increases, the fatality risk increases, and the rate at which the risk increases also increases (Joksch 1993). More recently, using crash data between 1983 and 2010, a United Kingdom study examined the fatality risk of belted drivers in non-rollover, frontal- and side-impact crashes. The study established that the estimated fatality risk in a frontal impact crash was 3%, 17%, and 60% at 30 mph, 40 mph, and 50 mph velocity change in a crash, respectively. For side-impact crashes, the estimated fatality risk was 25% and 85% at 30 mph and 40 mph velocity change, respectively (Richards 2010).

Further, the link between injury severity and speed extends to pedestrians involved in a motor vehicle crash. According to the European Transport Safety Council, 5% of pedestrians struck by a vehicle at 20 mph are fatally injured. This likelihood increases to 45% at 30 mph, and 85% at 40 mph (ETSC 1995). The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety similarly found that the average risk of severe injury to a pedestrian increased from 10% at 16 mph, to 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph (Tefft 2011).

2.3.2 Crash Involvement
Unlike the straightforward relationship between speed and injury severity, the association between speed and crash involvement is more complex, often leading to conflicting results.

However, research has generally shown that the crash involvement rate increases with speed (Baruya and Finch 1994; Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening 1991; Kloeden, McLean, and Glonek 2002; Taylor, Lynam, and Baruya 2000). A comprehensive analysis of 98 studies confirmed the statistical relationship between speed and crash involvement; the speed-crash relationship was consistent among crashes of all injury severity levels (Elvik, Christensen, and Amundsen 2004).

A driver-based study that combined on-road observation and questionnaire surveys of over 10,000 drivers in the United Kingdom in the 1990s showed that “drivers who habitually travel faster than average are involved in more accidents in a year’s driving” (Taylor, Lynam, and Baruya 2000).

The relationship that the crash involvement rate increases with speed can be explained by the fact that increased speed reduces the available time for the driver to receive and process information (AASHTO 2011). Further, the stopping distance of a vehicle and the chance of a vehicle being driven off the road while negotiating a curve both increase with vehicle speed (Srinivasan and others 2006).

Some older research has illustrated that the crash involvement rate decreases with speed (Baruya 1998; Garber and Gadirau 1988), whereas other research has not demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between speed and crash involvement (Kockelman and Ma 2007; Quddus 2013). There are many reasons for these contradicting results. The relationship between speed and crash involvement can be affected by traffic flow and roadway geometry, such as curvature, grade, and width (Milton and Mannering 1998; Abdel-Aty and Radwan 2000; Chang 2005; Anastasopoulos and Mannering 2009). Other factors may include geography, road type, land use, driver age, and alcohol-impairment. Further, different research methodologies may contribute 870
NTSB Safety Study
12 to the inconsistency of the relationship found between speed and crash involvement. For example, one study found that the crash involvement rate decreases with speed using distance-based measures (for example, crashes per vehicle mile), but it also found that the crash involvement rate increases with speed using time-based measures (for example, crashes per vehicle hour) (Pei, Wong, and Sze 2012).

More recently, based on an analysis of the naturalistic driving data of 3,500 participants, researchers showed that the odds ratio of speeding was 12.8, meaning speeding increased the odds of crash involvement by a factor of almost 13 relative to control situations (Dingus and others 2016).

Another factor that contributes to the complexity of the relationship between speed and crash involvement is speed variance.16 Two studies from the 1960s showed that vehicles traveling at much lower and higher speeds than average contributed to increased rates of crash involvement (Solomon 1964; Cirillo 1968). In the 1980s, another study showed that it was speed variance, not speed, that contributed to fatalities (Lave 1985). However, there were several limitations in these studies. The speed data and crash data were not collected during the same time period; crashes involving turning vehicles were included in the crash analysis; and speed prior to the crash was self-reported by the driver (TRB 1998). Research has also shown that “when turning vehicles were removed from the analysis only those driving at speeds significantly above the traffic speed remained over-involved in crashes” (Fildes and Lee 1993). Another often cited study was conducted in Virginia in the 1980s and demonstrated that the crash involvement rate increased with speed variance on all road types (Garber and Gadirau 1988). However, this study and later research pointed out that speed variance increases as the difference between roadway design speeds and speed limits increases (Garber and Gadirau 1989; Stuster, Coffman, and Warren 1998).17 These studies generally provided consistent evidence that driving faster than the surrounding traffic increased crash involvement rates; the evidence was less conclusive with respect to driving slower than the surrounding traffic (Aarts and van Schagen 2006).

There are numerous interrelated factors that complicate the relationship between speed and crash involvement. Although speed variance within a traffic flow exists and is often cited as a concern, the degree to which speed variance contributes to crash involvement is inconclusive.

However, the link between speed and injury severity in a crash is consistent and direct.

16 Speed variance refers to the variability of individual vehicle speeds within the overall traffic flow. Similar terms include speed dispersion and speed variation.
17 See section 3.1.1 for further discussion of design speeds and speed limits. 871
NTSB Safety Study
13 2.4 Characteristics of Speeding-Related Crashes
In this section, the NTSB focuses on fatal crashes in 2014 to highlight some characteristics of speeding-related crashes, including how they vary by road type, land use, alcohol-impairment, and driver age. The purpose of these analyses is not to describe in detail all factors associated with speeding, but to address some common misconceptions and illustrate the complexity of the relationship between speed and crash involvement.18

2.4.1 Road Types and Land Use
Different road types serve different functions and they have different characteristics, such as traffic volume, access, geometry, and speed limits.19 Table 3 illustrates that the percentage of fatal crashes that involved a speeding passenger vehicle in 2014 varied among the different road and land use types. One misconception about speeding-related crashes is that they primarily occur on high-speed roads such as interstate highways. However, local roads had the highest percentage (30%) of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles. Collector roads had the second-highest percentage (29%). Twenty-six percent of fatal crashes that occurred on freeways involved a speeding passenger vehicle. Table 3 also shows that a higher percentage of fatal crashes involved speeding passenger vehicles on rural roads (27%) than on urban roads (22%) in 2014.

Local roads experienced the largest difference by land use; 35% of fatal crashes on rural local roads involved speeding passenger vehicles, whereas 25% of fatal crashes on urban local roads involved speeding passenger vehicles.

Table 3. Number and percent of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by road type and land use, 2014
Road Type
Rural Urban All
Number % Number % Number %
Interstate and Freeway 316 24.9 711 26.6 1,027 26.1
Other Principal Arterial 598 18.9 699 16.6 1,297 17.6
Minor Arterial 687 25.6 551 21.3 1,238 23.5
Collector 1,019 29.3 282 28.2 1,301 29.0
Local 808 35.2 626 25.4 1,434 30.1
Total 3,469 26.7 2,892 22.2 6,369 24.4
Source: FARS

18 For more detailed discussions of crash characteristics related to speeding, see the FHWA reports Development of a Speeding-Related Crash Typology (Council and others 2010) and Integrating Speed Management within Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Focus Areas (Neuner and others 2016). 19 Appendix B provides descriptions of the FHWA road function classifications (road types). NHTSA also uses this classification system to tally fatality statistics. 872
NTSB Safety Study
14 Further, of the 6,369 fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, 3,469 occurred on rural roads (55%). According to the FHWA, 920 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) occurred on rural roads, which represented 30% of the total VMT in 2014 in the United States. Among all of the rural road types, 18% of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles occurred on local roads while such roads comprised only 14% of all rural VMT. Similarly, in urban areas, it was local roads that had the largest over-involvement of speeding passenger vehicles (22% of fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles versus 15% of all urban VMT). These observations indicate that the risk attributed to speeding among passenger vehicles varies among road types and land uses.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles by land use and reported speed limit.20 On rural roads, most of these crashes occurred on roads with reported speed limits of 55 to 60 mph, whereas in urban areas most occurred on roads with reported speed limits of 35 to 40 mph. Eighty-two percent of all fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles on rural roads (2,796 of 3,418) occurred at locations with reported speed limits of 45 mph and above. In contrast, these reported speed limits accounted for 40% of all urban fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, a total of 1,383 such crashes. Therefore, speeding as a contributing factor represented different percentages of fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles on roads that serve different functions, with different speed limits, and in different land use areas.

Figure 3. Fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by reported speed limit and land use, 2014

20 Speed limit is reported in FARS data at the vehicle level. This variable represents the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle was traveling before the crash.

Source: FARS
20 550
833
556
460
367
16 184
422
659
1,511
626
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
≤20 25-30 35-40 45-50 55-60 ≥65
Fatal Crashes Involving
Speeding Passenger Vehicles
Reported Speed Limit (mph)
Urban Rural
873
NTSB Safety Study
15 2.4.2 Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Another misconception about speeding is that it is a problem that can be largely solved by focusing on alcohol impairment. The NTSB examined alcohol-impairment information for 6,409 speeding passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 and found that 2,739 (43%) were alcohol-impaired.21 The remaining 3,670 speeding passenger vehicle drivers (57%) were not alcohol-impaired. For comparison, among all passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes, 22% were alcohol-impaired. Thus, although there is considerable overlap between alcohol impairment and speeding, more speeding drivers in fatal crashes are not alcohol-impaired than impaired. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of fatalities in crashes involving passenger vehicles by speeding and alcohol-impairment categories. In 2014, 28,615 fatalities involved passenger vehicles. Of these, 3,958 fatalities (14%) were attributed to crashes in which speeding was identified as a factor while alcohol impairment was not. Fatalities involving speeding passenger vehicles represent a pervasive and complex safety issue that cannot be mitigated by reducing alcohol-impaired driving alone.

Figure 4. Fatalities involving passenger vehicles, by crash factors, 2014

21 Because a large number of drivers do not have their BAC level reported in FARS, NHTSA uses a statistical algorithm known as multiple imputation to estimate the BAC level. Ten BAC estimates are produced for each driver.

The NTSB performed the same analysis 10 times using each set of imputed BAC estimates. The counts and percentages reported here are the average values of the 10 analyses. In addition, of the 6,422 speeding passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014, 13 drivers had no person-level information (such as imputed BAC), so the results presented here are based on 6,409 drivers.

Speeding

13.8% (3,958)
Speeding
and Alcohol

11.6% (3,315)
Alcohol

18.3% (5,234)
Neither Speeding
nor Alcohol

56.3% (16,108)
Source: FARS
874
NTSB Safety Study
16 2.4.3 Driver Age
Driver age is also an important factor in speeding-related crashes. Figure 5 illustrates the age distribution of speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, and driver license counts. The three age groups with the most speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes are under 20, 20- to 24-year-olds, and 25- to 29-year-olds. Just these three groups include 3,167 drivers, representing 50% of all speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes. For comparison, these three age groups comprised 33% of crash involvement in all fatal crashes and 21% of licensed drivers. These observations indicate that the risk of speeding is higher among younger drivers.

Figure 5. Age distribution of speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, all passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, and licensed drivers, 2014 Although factors such as speed variance, road type, land use, alcohol impairment, and driver age affect the specific relationship between speed and crash involvement, there is strong evidence indicating that fatal and serious injury crash involvement rates increase with speed.

Therefore, the NTSB concludes that speed increases the likelihood of serious and fatal crash involvement, although the exact relationship is complex due to many factors. In comparison, existing research literature and crash data illustrate a more straightforward and direct relationship between speed and crash severity. Therefore, the NTSB further concludes that speed increases the injury severity of a crash.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percent of Drivers
Driver Age
Speeding Passenger Vehicle Drivers in Fatal Crashes
All Passenger Vehicle Drivers in Fatal Crashes
Licensed Drivers
Source: FARS, FHWA
875
NTSB Safety Study
17 2.5 Attitudes Toward Speeding
The NTSB reviewed two large-scale, periodic surveys of individual attitudes toward speeding in the United States. In both surveys, participants consisted of a nationally representative sample of drivers. The first survey, the National Survey of Speeding Attitudes and Behavior, was most recently conducted by NHTSA in 2011.22 This self-reporting survey examines several aspects of speeding, including drivers’ attitudes about speeding and various speeding countermeasures (Schroeder, Kostyniuk, and Mack 2013). The survey results reveal a general contradiction among US drivers between what is considered acceptable in society and individual behavior. For example, most drivers (91%) agreed (either strongly or somewhat) that everyone should obey the speed limits because it is the law, and 87% agreed that it is unacceptable to exceed speed limits by more than 20 mph. Yet, 27% of respondents agreed that speeding is something they do without thinking, and 42% agreed that driving at or near the speed limit makes it difficult to keep up with traffic.

The second survey, the Traffic Safety Culture Index, has been conducted annually since 2008 by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. The NTSB examined the results for the most recent survey, conducted in 2015 (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2016).23 Figure 6 illustrates that 70% and 80% of respondents stated their opinion that drivers speeding on freeways and residential streets, respectively, are a very serious or somewhat serious threat to their personal safety.

Figure 6. Drivers responding that speeding is a threat to personal safety, by road type, 2015

22 This survey was previously conducted in 2002 and 1997. 23 The surveys for 2011 through 2014 were also examined; the speeding-related responses showed little year-to-year variation.
32%
44%
38%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Freeways Residential Streets
Drivers Responding that Speeding
is a Threat to Personal Safety
Road Type
Somewhat Serious Threat
Very Serious Threat
Source: AAA Foundation
876
NTSB Safety Study
18 However, the perceived risks and acceptance of speeding were not reflected in the drivers’ own behaviors. For example, 89% of respondents considered it unacceptable to drive 10 mph over the speed limit on a residential street, yet 45% reported having done so in the past 30 days.

Similarly, 74% of respondents considered it unacceptable to drive 15 mph over the speed limit on freeways, yet 48% admitted to having done so in the past 30 days. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that drivers report understanding that speeding is a threat to safety but acknowledge it is a common driving behavior in the United States.

2.6 Countermeasures
Strategies for improving traffic safety in general, and addressing speeding in particular, have traditionally been grouped into three categories: engineering, enforcement, and education (Donnell and others 2009).24 Engineering refers to roadway infrastructure changes. Enforcement refers to strategies to ensure drivers obey existing laws. Education refers to efforts to inform drivers and other stakeholders about traffic safety laws and the consequences of risky behavior. Table 4 lists examples of speeding countermeasures in these three categories. Some emerging speeding countermeasures researched for this study expand these three categories beyond their current definitions. For example, vehicle technologies are becoming available to prevent drivers from speeding, which may be considered an engineering countermeasure.

Table 4. Examples of speeding countermeasures
Countermeasure Type Examples
Engineering
Variable speed limits
Speed feedback signs
Roundabouts
Speed humps
Road dietsa
Enforcement
Regular traffic patrols
High-visibility enforcement
Automated enforcement
Education
Driver education courses
Public awareness campaigns
Judicial education
a Road diets “reallocate travel lanes and utilize the space for other uses and travel modes,” for example, by converting a four-lane roadway to one with two through lanes and a center left-turn lane (FHWA 2016).

A comprehensive approach to speeding typically involves multiple countermeasures. For example, NHTSA states that “no single strategy will be appropriate for all locations, and combinations of treatments may be needed to obtain speed limit compliance and achieve crash reduction goals” (Goodwin and others 2015).

24 Some organizations add other categories, such as emergency medical services, evaluation, and encouragement (Cambridge Systematics 2010; State of Vermont 2016).
877
NTSB Safety Study
19 2.7 National, State, and Local Roles
National, state, and local organizations all play roles in addressing speeding-related crashes. Speeding countermeasures are typically implemented at the state and local level, while federal government agencies conduct research, issue guidance material, set standards, and coordinate activities among states. Three DOT agencies play critical roles in addressing speeding-related issues: the FHWA, NHTSA, and the FMCSA.25 The FHWA’s responsibilities include engineering and roadway infrastructure topics, NHTSA’s responsibilities include driver behavior research and vehicle safety, and the FMCSA’s responsibilities include large truck and bus operations.
26 To coordinate speeding-related work across these agencies, the DOT established a Speed Management Team in 2000, composed of representatives from the FHWA, NHTSA, and the FMCSA. The Speed Management Team works to “reduce speeding-related fatalities, injuries, and crashes through the application and promotion of enforcement, engineering, educational, and evaluative approaches in a collaborative manner among member agencies in support of the US DOT goal of reducing the number of traffic fatalities” (DOT 2011).

Congress establishes and provides funding for traffic safety programs through legislation.

Most recently, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Public Law 114-94), was signed into law in December 2015. This law superseded the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Public Law 112-141), which was signed into law in July 2012.

DOT agencies are responsible for implementing these traffic safety programs, including the following federal-aid programs designed to encourage traffic safety activities at the state and local levels:
• Highway Safety Improvement Program: The FHWA administers this program in conjunction with state departments of transportation; it provides grants to states for engineering countermeasures (Title 23 United States Code (USC) section 148). • Highway Safety Program: NHTSA administers this program in conjunction with state highway safety offices; it provides grants to states for behavioral (that is, non-engineering) countermeasures in 10 areas, including projects “to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicles being driven in excess of posted speed limits” (23 USC section 402). • National Priority Safety Programs: NHTSA also administers this program in conjunction with state highway safety offices; it provides incentive grants to states for non-engineering projects in seven priority areas, each of which is specified in legislation along with a funding amount (23 USC section 405).27 Speeding is not one of the seven priority areas.

Funds distributed under these federal-aid programs are then awarded by the state departments of transportation and highway safety offices to individual state and local projects

25 The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) also provides research support to these and other DOT agencies.
26 Because the FMCSA does not focus on passenger vehicles, its speeding-related activities were not examined in detail for this study.
27 The seven priority areas are impaired driving, occupant protection, state traffic safety information system improvement, motorcycle safety, distracted driving, graduated driver licensing, and nonmotorized safety. 878
NTSB Safety Study
20 through selection committees and competitive application processes. Table 5 summarizes the federal-aid traffic safety programs.

Table 5. Federal-aid programs for traffic safety
Program Type of Projects
Funded
Responsible
Federal Agency
Responsible
State Agency
Funds SpeedingRelated Projects?
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Engineeringbased
countermeasures
FHWA Department of
Transportation Yes
Highway Safety
Program
Non-engineering
countermeasures NHTSA Highway Safety Office Yes
National Priority
Safety Programs
Non-engineering
countermeasures
in seven priority
areas
NHTSA Highway
Safety Office No
In addition, several non-governmental organizations play significant roles in setting standards and providing guidance. For example, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), which represents state highway safety offices, works with NHTSA to produce standards for states to report crash data (GHSA and NHTSA 2012). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents state departments of transportation, produces standards for roadway design, and provides guidance for predicting crash frequency and the effects of engineering countermeasures on roadway segments (AASHTO 2011; AASHTO 2010). The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which is an international association of transportation professionals, publishes guidance on traffic engineering studies (ITE 2016).
879
NTSB Safety Study
21 3 Safety Issues
The NTSB focused on the following five safety issues pertaining to the effective application of proven and emerging countermeasures for speeding: (1) speed limits, (2) data-driven approaches for speed enforcement, (3) ASE, (4) intelligent speed adaptation, and (5) national leadership. The NTSB identified these issues in part because stakeholders repeatedly and consistently expressed concerns about them during study interviews.28

3.1 Speed Limits
NHTSA states that speed limits are an effective way to control driving speeds (Goodwin and others 2015). Speed limits represent the driving speeds above which the risk is deemed by transportation officials as unacceptable, and the act of driving above those speeds is discouraged.

Such limits form the legal basis upon which speed enforcement activities are implemented. Despite being recognized as an effective method to control driving speeds, there is no standard approach to setting or adjusting speed limits in the United States. In practice, the operating speed of free-flowing traffic is the most prominent factor used. Other factors, such as crash experience and the risk of injury to vulnerable road users, are not given similar emphasis as operating speed.

3.1.1 Background
This section provides a general discussion of the relationship among design speed, operating speed, and speed limits. The publication Speed Concepts: Informational Guide provides explanations of many terms and concepts used in this study (Donnell and others 2009).

Speed is an important consideration in the design phase of a road. Design speed refers to a selected speed for a road upon which all geometric design features are based, and it is selected according to anticipated traffic characteristics, such as operating speed and traffic volume, along with topography, adjacent land use, and road type (AASHTO 2011).29 Because many of these factors are based on anticipated use, a design speed does not always match the actual operating speed of a road. Table 6 shows the ranges of minimum design speeds for level roads by road type according to the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets and examples of posted speed limits provided by the FHWA (AASHTO 2011; FHWA 2000).

These minimum design speeds range from 20 mph for local urban streets to 75 mph for rural

28 The NTSB examined other countermeasures, but stakeholder concerns about their implementation were not as substantial. For example, there are many engineering countermeasures for speeding, including roundabouts, speed bumps, and road diets. However, the effectiveness of these countermeasures is well established and information about them is available in several sources, including the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO 2010) and the FHWA’s online Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. Engineering countermeasures for speeding are also promoted in the National Association of City Transportation Planners’ Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO 2017) and are increasingly being adopted by state and local transportation departments. For instance, about $96 million in Highway Safety Improvement Project funds were used for 70 projects to convert intersections to roundabouts in 2014; this increased to $103 million for 91 projects in 2015 (Smith 2015; Smith and Signor 2016). 29 Title 23 CFR Part 625 provides design standards for highways. Design speed is 1 of 10 “controlling criteria” for which state transportation departments are required to evaluate and document any decision to deviate from the standard. The FHWA’s May 5, 2016, memorandum, Revisions to the Controlling Criteria for Design and Documentation for Design Exceptions, provides a detailed listing of these criteria. 880
NTSB Safety Study
22 arterial roads. These are called minimum design speeds because AASHTO encourages road designers to select design speeds equal to or greater than the design speed values (AASHTO 2011).

Once the design speed is selected for a new road, various design criteria (such as minimum sight distances, maximum grade, and minimum horizontal curve radii) for geometric features of a roadway are determined. AASHTO recommends using above-minimum criteria when practical (AASHTO 2011; Donnell and others 2009). Thus, a road designer often selects a design speed above the minimum design speed associated with the road type, its function, and predicted traffic volume, and then uses design criteria above the minimum criteria associated with the selected design speed. Therefore, some roads are built to accommodate traffic flows and speeds above what was originally anticipated.

Table 6. AASHTO’s recommended minimum design speeds and typical posted speed limits, by road type
Road Type Minimum Design Speeds (mph)a Typical Posted Speed Limits (mph)b Freewayc 50–70 55–75
Rural arterial 40–75 50–70
Urban arterial 30–60 50–70
Rural collector 40–60 35–55
Urban collector 30 35–55
Local rural road 30–50 20–45
Local urban street 20–30 20–45
a Minimum design speeds are dependent upon design volume. High design speed values are typically associated with anticipated volume greater than 2,000 vehicles per day; other factors may include available right of way, terrain, likely pedestrian presence, adjacent development, and other area control (AASHTO 2011). In this table, only those values for level roads are used.
b Source: FHWA 2000
c Freeways include interstate highways and expressways.

Once a road is built, speed limits are established by state or local authorities. For example, a state may have a statutory speed limit of 65 mph for all rural freeways (such as interstates) and 55 mph for all rural undivided arterial roads. Ideally these statutory speed limits are lower than the design speeds established during the design phase. However, some road segments may have speed limits that are higher or lower than the statutory speed limits. These road segments are generally known as speed zones, and their speed limits, which can be higher or lower than the statutory speed limits, are commonly known as posted speed limits.
30 Once a newly built road is open for traffic, over time a traffic flow develops with diverse vehicle types and drivers. Each driver is influenced by the geometric characteristics of a roadway (for example, curvature and width), roadside development, the surrounding traffic flow, topography, and the posted speed limit, and they individually choose operating speeds. Because each driver is different, driver operating speeds vary, which results in a speed distribution (that is, a range of operating speeds). The range of operating speeds may not match the anticipated

30 The FHWA Speed Concepts: Informational Guide provides an in-depth discussion of these terms (Donnell and others 2009).
881
NTSB Safety Study
23 operating speeds. When a mismatch occurs, an adjustment of the posted speed limit may be appropriate.

3.1.2 Engineering Studies, Speed Surveys, and the 85th Percentile Speed Stakeholders can request adjustments to speed limits. Requests can come from private citizens, from local or state transportation officials, or as a result of legislation. When such a request is made (that is, to set up a speed zone, whether it is above or below the statutory speed limit), state and local transportation departments typically require that an engineering study of the road segment be conducted to determine if raising or lowering the speed limit is appropriate.

Although the specific procedures may vary, state and local transportation departments typically refer to the FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which states that “speed zones shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles” (FHWA 2012a). 31 The ITE publication
Manual of Transportation Studies provides guidance on conducting an engineering study and the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook outlines the professional practices of traffic engineering studies (ITE 2010; ITE 2016). Although there is guidance on conducting engineering studies, “a universal process for conducting these studies does not exist” (Donnell and other 2009). Still, FHWA guidance states that “when a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic” (FHWA 2012a). As a result, the predominant factor used in establishing posted speed limits remains the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic (Donnell and others 2009; TRB 1998).

The 85th percentile speed refers to the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are traveling (FHWA 2012a). This measurement is obtained by conducting a speed survey, which is part of an engineering study. Each state transportation department has its own procedure for conducting a speed survey.32 However, it generally consists of measuring a sample of vehicles representative of the overall traffic along the road segment for which a proposed speed limit change is requested. The locations where speed measurements are made must represent free-flowing speeds (that is, avoiding intersections or narrowing road segments), and they must be appropriately spaced along the proposed segment. The 85th percentile speed is then computed by analyzing the speed measurements of the sample vehicles at these locations.

The use of the operating speed, more specifically the 85th percentile speed, is based on the assumption that the majority of drivers (1) are capable of selecting appropriate speeds according to weather conditions, traffic, road geometry, and roadside development; and (2) operate at reasonable and prudent speeds (Krammes and others 1996). The use of the 85th percentile speed for adjusting speed limits emerged as early as the 1940s (TRB 1998). Support for its use came from empirical research of self-reported crashes on 2- or 4-lane rural highways in the late 1950s.

This research showed that drivers operating at much lower and much higher speeds than the majority of drivers were involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes (Solomon 1964).

Focusing on higher speeds, the research therefore indicated that a small group of drivers traveling

31 Appendix C provides the relevant sections of the MUTCD. 32 For example, Chapter 3 of the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits provides a detailed description of what an engineering study and speed survey include (California Department of Transportation 2014). 882
NTSB Safety Study
24 at speeds much higher than average were responsible for more crashes. By definition, 15% of all drivers were traveling above the 85th percentile speed. This small fraction of drivers was considered to be operating at unsafe speeds that disproportionately contributed to crash risk. “The 85th percentile speed not only represents the upper bound of the preferred driving speed of most drivers, but, according to some studies, for some roads it also corresponds to the upper bound of a speed range where crash involvement rates are lowest” (TRB 1998). Over time, setting the speed limit near the 85th percentile speed has become common practice and is considered “the traffic engineers’ traditional rule of thumb” (Shinar 2017). However, it is unclear whether this relationship between crash involvement rates and the 85th percentile speed applies to all road types (TRB 1998). Further, “the original research between speed and safety which purported that the safest travel speed is the 85th percentile speed is dated research and may not be valid under scrutiny” (Forbes, Gardner, McGee, and Srinivasan 2012). Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the MUTCD guidance for setting speed limits in speed zones is based on the 85th percentile speed, but there is not strong evidence that, within a given traffic flow, the 85th percentile speed equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate on all road types.

3.1.3 Unintended Consequences of Using the 85th Percentile Speed Using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits on road segments may have unintended consequences. Raising the speed limit to match the 85th percentile speed may lead to higher operating speeds, and hence a higher 85th percentile speed. This generates an undesirable cycle of speed escalation and reduced safety (Donnell and others 2009). As a 2016 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) report stated, “The 85th percentile speed is not a stationary point. It is, rather, a moving target that increases when speed limits are raised” (Farmer 2016).

In recent years, several western US states have raised speed limits in segments of their rural interstate highways. For example, the Texas Transportation Code states that the speed limit is 70 mph for a highway numbered by Texas (for example, State Highway 130) or the United States (for example, Interstate 10) outside an urban area.33 It also gives authority to the Texas Department of Transportation to increase or reduce the posted speed limit as long as it is supported by an engineering study.34 The Texas Transportation Code requires that such engineering studies follow the “Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones,” which emphasizes the use of the 85th percentile speed (Texas Department of Transportation 2015).
35 In 2011, Texas raised the posted speed limit
from 70 to 75 mph on a 45-mile long segment of State Highway 130. One year later in 2012, the limit was increased to 80 mph on the same segment (Texas Department of Transportation 2017).

Currently, the toll portion of this segment has a posted speed limit of 85 mph, the highest posted speed limit in the United States.

33 See Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Subtitle C, Chapter 545, Section 352. 34 See Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Subtitle C, Chapter 545, Section 353. 35 Specifically, the “Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones” states “speed limits on all roadways should be set based on spot speed studies and the 85th percentile operating speed” (Texas Department of Transportation 2015). 883
NTSB Safety Study
25 The trend of raising speed limits is not limited to Texas. In 2012, 35 states had maximum speed limits at or above 70 mph (GHSA 2012).36 By 2016, the number of states with maximum speed limits at or above 70 mph had increased to 41. Figure 7 shows the maximum speed limits by state in 2016, along with the respective increases in maximum speed limits from 2012 to 2016.

There are seven states with maximum speed limits at or above 80 mph; they are all located in the western half of the United States. Texas and Utah, which are highlighted in figure 7, already had maximum speed limits at or above 80 mph in 2012. The remaining five states all had 5 mph increases between 2012 and 2016. Figure 7 also highlights the regional trend of maximum speed limit increases in the Northwest.

Figure 7. Maximum speed limits by state and the District of Columbia in 2016 and changes in maximum speed limits from 2012 to 2016

36 Maximum speed limit refers to the maximum posted daytime speed limit on any segment of any road within a state. Such segments are most likely located on rural interstates and the speed limit is applied to passenger cars only.

For example, Texas has a maximum speed limit of 85 mph and it is limited to the 41-mile toll portion of State Highway 130. The IIHS maintains a regularly updated summary of maximum posted speed limits by state (IIHS 2017).

MT
+5
NV
+5
ID
+5
WY
+5
SD
+5
TX
UT
CA
AZ NM
CO
KS
IA
NE
MN
FL
ND
OK
MO
WA
AL GA
AR
MI
IN
NY
NC
MS
TN
VA
KY
OH
SC
ME
WV
HI
VT
NJ
MA
RI
CT
DC
OR
+5
AK
+10
IL
+5
WI
+5
LA
+5
PA
+5
NH
+5
MD
+5
DE
+10
884
NTSB Safety Study
26 When speed limits are raised along segments of roads, such as those in rural Texas and Utah, the overall impact on vehicle speeds may not be limited to those segments. Impacts to road segments adjacent to the speed zones are known as spillover effects. These effects are supported by the theory of speed adaptation, which suggests that a driver perceives a lower traveling speed after operating the vehicle at a higher speed earlier (Schmidt and Tiffin 1969; Matthews 1978). A case control study of the effects of raising the speed limit from 75 to 80 mph on segments of rural interstate highways in Utah found that passenger vehicle speeds within the 80 mph speed zones increased by an average of 3.1 mph, and the probability of passenger vehicles exceeding 80 mph was 122% higher after the speed limit increase than would have been expected without it. The study also illustrated spillover effects because passenger vehicle speeds increased by 2.6 mph, and the probability of passenger vehicles exceeding 80 mph was 89% higher at three nearby locations where speed limits remained 75 mph (Hu 2016). Therefore, there is often an unintended increase in operating speeds in areas outside of the speed zones where the speed limit has been raised.

Further, California raised the speed limit on some rural interstates from 55 mph to 65 mph in 1987.

Researchers found that higher vehicle speeds were observed in both the freeway and the connecting road locations in 1988, compared to 1985. However, the freeways used in the studies were not eligible for the speed limit increase and the nearest rural interstates with an increased speed limit of 65 mph were 2 hours driving distance away. This research showed that speed limit increases on roads in highly rural areas may have significant impacts on other roads that are geographically distant and disconnected (Casey and Lund 1992). The NTSB concludes that unintended consequences of the reliance on using the 85th percentile speed for changing speed limits in speed zones include higher operating speeds and new, higher 85th percentile speeds in the speed zones, and an increase in operating speeds outside the speed zones.

3.1.4 Expert System
Although the 85th percentile speed is the predominant factor used in establishing speed limits, the MUTCD indicates several additional factors that may be considered. Specifically, it includes the following factors as options to the standard engineering study: “(A) road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; (B) the pace; (C) roadside development and environment; (D) parking practices and pedestrian activity; and (E) reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period” (FHWA 2012a). However, the MUTCD does not provide any specific guidance on how these factors are to be considered. Engineers typically rely on their experience and judgement, which may lead to inconsistent practices in setting speed limits.

The transportation research community recognized the need to provide a systematic and consistent method for setting speed limits that incorporates factors other than operating speed (National Research Council 1998; Srinivasan and others 2006). An expert system is a software program that simulates the decision-making process of an expert in solving complex problems (Srinivasan and others 2006). In the United States, the FHWA developed a web-based expert system, known as USLIMITS2, for recommending credible and enforceable speed limits in speed zones (Forbes and others 2012).37 The FHWA and AASHTO approved USLIMITS2 as a “priority,

37 The USLIMITS2 expert system can be accessed via its website page. USLIMITS2 is the second version of an expert system (the first version was named USLIMITS) that was built on the lessons learned from the XLIMITS expert system of Australia in the 1980s. Input from an expert panel consisting of traffic engineers, officers, decision makers, and researchers across the United States improved upon the first version (FHWA 2012b). 885
NTSB Safety Study
27 market-ready technology and innovation” in 2008, and the FHWA began hosting USLIMITS2 and promoting its use to state and local agencies in 2012 (FHWA 2017).

USLIMITS2 can be used as a complementary tool to validate the results of engineering studies described in section 3.1.2. One advantage of USLIMITS2 is that crash statistics are listed as required input data.38 In contrast, the MUTCD includes crash statistics as an optional factor.

Therefore, in USLIMITS2, crash statistics, along with other factors such as road geometry characteristics, roadside characteristics, and traffic volume, are used to adjust the posted speed limits between the 50th and 85th percentile speeds (FHWA 2012b). The NTSB concludes that expert systems such as USLIMITS2 can improve the setting of speed limits by allowing traffic engineers to systematically incorporate crash statistics and other factors in addition to the 85th percentile speed, and to validate their engineering studies.

3.1.5 Vulnerable Road Users on Urban Roads
In highly populated urban areas, there are more interactions between vehicular traffic and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. In 2014, 314 pedestrians and 46 bicyclists died in speeding-related crashes in the United States; 275 of these fatalities (76%) occurred in urban areas. Pedestrians and bicyclists are especially vulnerable because of their lack of protection.

The direct relationship between vehicle speed and injury severity adversely affects pedestrians.

The likelihood of pedestrian death increases from 5% at a vehicle impact speed of 20 mph, to 45% at 30 mph, and 85% at 40 mph (ETSC 1995). Similarly, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety analyzed NHTSA’s NASS Pedestrian Crash Data Study data (July 1994 through December 1998), which showed that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian increased from 10% at a 16 mph vehicle impact speed, to 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph (Tefft 2011). Although local residential streets typically have a 25 mph speed limit, there are many connecting roads in urban areas where speed limits are set at 35 to 45 mph, such as urban collectors and minor arterials.

The vulnerability of pedestrians in urban areas is a main reason why some municipalities have adopted a strategy called Vision Zero. This strategy was first developed and implemented in the 1990s in Sweden. It acknowledges that traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable and sets the goal of eliminating both in a specific time period. Vision Zero uses a multi-disciplinary approach that involves diverse stakeholders (ITE 2017). According to the Vision Zero Network, as of March 2017, there are 26 Vision Zero cities in the United States.39 Research has found that lowering speed limits can lead to sustained traveling speed reductions (Kloeden and Woolley 2012; De Pauw and others 2014) and crash reductions in urban areas (Islam, El-Basyouny, and Ibrahim 2014; D’Elia, Newstead, and Cameron 2007). Several transportation officials from Vision Zero cities interviewed by the NTSB for this study stressed

38 It is possible to use USLIMITS2 to generate a speed limit recommendation without crash statistics even though it is listed as a required input variable in USLIMITS2 (FHWA 2012b). However, a warning statement is displayed recommending the input of crash statistics to regenerate the recommendation. 39 To be considered a Vision Zero city, a city must meet the following criteria: “(1) sets clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, (2) mayor has publicly, officially committed to Vision Zero, (3) Vision Zero plan or strategy is in place, or mayor has committed to doing so in clear time frame, and (4) key city departments (including police, transportation, and public health) are engaged” (Vision Zero Network 2017). 886
NTSB Safety Study
28 the importance of lowering speed limits to minimize the injury risk for vulnerable users, but they indicated this was often difficult because state transportation department policies emphasize the use of the 85th percentile speed.

The growth of the Vision Zero strategy in the United States reflects the emergence of the safe system approach in traffic safety. The safe system approach is a holistic approach to prevent crashes, or to at least prevent serious injuries resulting from crashes. Setting an appropriate speed limit is one aspect of the safe system approach. It recognizes that the responsibility for crash prevention resides not only with drivers but also with all stakeholders of the road system. These include those who design, manage, and use the road; those who set and enforce the speed limit; and those who provide emergency response. Therefore, how the road is designed and how the speed limit is set both play a role in crash prevention. It calls for the strengthening of all elements so that road users are still protected if one of these elements fails (ITF 2016). Road users, such as drivers and pedestrians, are viewed in the safe system approach as the “weakest link” (OECD 2008).

The safe system approach to speed limits differs from the traditional view that drivers choose reasonable and safe speeds. In the safe system approach, speed limits are set according to the likely crash types, the resulting impact forces, and the human body’s ability to withstand these forces (Forbes and others 2012). It allows for human errors (that is, accepting humans will make mistakes) and acknowledges that humans are physically vulnerable (that is, physical tolerance to impact is limited). Therefore, in this approach, speed limits are set to minimize death and serious injury as a consequence of a crash (Jurewicz and others 2014). This approach is far more commonly applied outside of the United States, such as in Sweden (where it is called Vision Zero), the Netherlands (where it is called Sustainable Safety), and several jurisdictions in Australia (OECD 2008). However, it is now gaining acceptance in the United States, particularly in Vision Zero cities and municipalities.

The safe system approach calls for road designers to move from the conventional design (in which the posted speed limit is determined by the anticipated operating speed) to a proactive urban street design approach (in which the posted speed limit is determined by a target speed based on a desired safety result). The safe-system-approach-recommended maximum target speeds for urban roads are typically near the low end of the AASHTO minimum design speeds shown in Table 6. For example, the target speed for urban arterial roads is 35 mph compared to a 30 to 60 mph minimum design speed; for urban collector roads, the safe system target speed and the AASHTO minimum design speed are both 30 mph (NACTO 2017).

Based on an analysis of 3,603 speeding-related fatal crashes that occurred in cities in 2015, the NTSB estimated that 49% of these fatal crashes occurred on state-operated roads.40 Therefore, although these roads pass through cities, local jurisdictions have no direct authority to adjust their speed limits. Although local officials may wish to incorporate the safe system approach by proposing speed zones with lower limits in urban areas with vulnerable road users, they may be unable to do so because state transportation departments require engineering studies that are driven

40 Starting in 2015, FARS data include a variable that identifies road ownership. The NTSB used a geographic information system (GIS) analysis to estimate that 3,603 speeding-related fatal crashes occurred within city limits in 2015.
887
NTSB Safety Study
29 by the 85th percentile speed. The NTSB concludes that the safe system approach to setting speed limits in urban areas is an improvement over conventional approaches because it considers the vulnerability of all road users.

3.1.6 Rethinking How to Set Speed Limits
Section 2B.13 of the FHWA’s MUTCD serves as the standard for setting speed limits in speed zones. It requires the use of engineering studies that emphasize the use of the 85th percentile speed.41 The MUTCD also lists crash experience as one of several optional factors to be considered, but it lacks specific guidance on how to include these optional factors. In practice, most state transportation departments use the 85th percentile speed as the primary factor in setting speed limits in speed zones (Parker 1985; Fitzpatrick and others 1995; ITE 2001). The FHWA has developed, adopted, and promoted an expert system, USLIMITS2, that requires the use of crash statistics. USLIMITS2 is a valuable validation tool for engineering studies when setting speed limits, but its methods are not included in the FHWA’s MUTCD.

Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FHWA revise Section 2B.13 of the MUTCD so that the factors currently listed as optional for all engineering studies are required, require that an expert system such as USLIMITS2 be used as a validation tool, and remove the guidance that speed limits in speed zones should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed.

The relationship between speed and injury severity affects more than just speeding vehicle occupants. This is particularly true in urban areas where the interaction between vehicles and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians is considerably higher. A safe system approach to setting speed limits emphasizes the consideration of human biomechanical tolerances and shifts the focus from vehicles to all road users. Especially in urban areas, it has emerged as an alternative to the use of the 85th percentile speed in setting speed limits in speed zones.

Transportation officials in cities, such as those represented by National Association of City Transportation Officials, are already engaged in the discussion of a shift of emphasis from vehicle-based practices to multi-modal approaches to traffic safety. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, the National Committee on Uniform Control Devices, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers are active participants in the research and development of best practices.

These organizations may be well equipped to assist the FHWA in assessing the current practices of setting and adjusting speed limits, including but not limited to examining the use of the 85th percentile speed and incorporating the safe system approach. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FHWA revise Section 2B.13 of the MUTCD to, at a minimum, incorporate the safe system approach for urban roads to strengthen protection for vulnerable road users.

41 As discussed in section 3.1.2, the ITE provides general guidance for engineering studies, which is commonly used by traffic engineers (ITE 2010; ITE 2016).
888
NTSB Safety Study
30 3.2 Data-Driven Approaches for Speed Enforcement
Appropriately set speed limits must be enforced to be optimally effective. However, speed limit enforcement is only one of the duties of an officer. Several of the law enforcement agencies the NTSB interviewed indicated that staffing levels have been reduced, and that they have had difficulty recruiting and retaining officers. Further, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), a speed enforcement program involves many costs; they include staffing, procuring speed measurement equipment, equipment servicing, development or improvement of data processing systems, and increased court time and its associated staffing requirements (IACP 2004). Therefore, to adequately manage such staffing and cost issues, law enforcement agencies must efficiently allocate their resources.

One approach that law enforcement agencies use to promote traffic safety is high-visibility enforcement (HVE), in which conspicuous enforcement activities are conducted in areas with a high risk of crashes.42 This method has proven effective in detecting alcohol-impairment and ensuring seat belt use (Goodwin and others 2015). The most recognized type of HVE is accompanied by nationwide, large scale public media campaigns. HVE can also be integrated into the daily patrol routine, thereby indicating to the public that traffic enforcement is a law enforcement priority.

3.2.1 Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety Stakeholders interviewed for this study repeatedly stated that HVE is more effective when data are used to target the locations for enforcement. For example, in 2008, NHTSA and the US Department of Justice partnered to start an initiative known as Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) (National Institute of Justice 2014). Under this initiative, law enforcement agencies use geographic information systems (GIS) to analyze location-based crash and crime data to effectively deploy HVE to targeted areas known as hot spots, where both criminal activities and traffic incidents frequently occur (Kerrigan 2011; Hardy 2010). DDACTS specifically emphasizes data collection and analysis; disseminating information and outreach; using data to monitor, evaluate, and make adjustments; and measuring outcomes (NHTSA 2014; Hardy 2010).

Many local law enforcement agencies have reported that they effectively used DDACTS to allocate enforcement resources to reduce crashes and crime. The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department implemented an HVE program in 2004 that was based on DDACTS. The program collected traffic and crime data across the city, produced multilayered crime maps overlaying traffic violations with criminal activities, and used statistics-driven methods to identify hot spots down to specific street corners. The department then used HVE in those identified areas. Between 2003 and 2009, the Nashville metropolitan area experienced 16% and 31% decreases in fatal and injury crashes, respectively (Perry and others 2013).

In 2008, the Baltimore County Police Department launched a DDACTS-based HVE program called the Crash-Crime Project. GIS mapping tools were used to build multilayered maps detailing crime, traffic violations, and crash patterns. These maps helped the police department

42 Another term for HVE is highly visible traffic enforcement. 889
NTSB Safety Study
31 identify neighborhoods and street segments to which they should deploy high-visibility patrols and conduct vehicle stops (Hall and Puls 2010; Perry and others 2013). On December 4, 2012, the background and results of this DDACTS-based HVE program were presented at the NTSB “Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Transportation Safety” forum (Wilson and others 2012). The Baltimore County Police Department reported 6% and 15% decreases in all crashes and injury crashes, respectively, between 2007 and 2008 (Perry and others 2013).

In 2010, the Shawnee Police Department of Kansas deployed a DDACTS-based HVE program. Officers were assigned to conduct HVE in hot spots during specific times based on analysis of crime and crash data. Comparing data from the 3 years before and after the 2010 implementation of the Shawnee program, vehicle crashes decreased by 24% (Bryant, Collins, and White 2015).

Although some evidence suggests that data-driven, HVE programs such as DDACTS can be effective in improving traffic safety, there has been no systematic assessment of these programs.

All of the reports the NTSB reviewed used aggregate performance measures such as crash counts, traffic stops, and citation issuances (Bryant, Collins, and White 2015; Perry and others 2013; Wilson and others 2012). Although these measures have some merit, an evaluation with performance measures specific to speeding would be useful for identifying best practices for law enforcement agencies when conducting speeding-related, data-driven, HVE and for communicating the benefits of these programs. Speeding-related performance measures may include the numbers and locations of speeding-related crashes, citations, warnings, and the injury severity of speeding-related crashes. Consistent evaluation methods may require the use of minimum before and after time periods for comparison. The DDACTS Operational Guide recommends using specific types of crashes and 3 to 5 years of crash data when conducting evaluations (NHTSA 2014). In addition, the guide highlights that “the findings from the data analysis are an important tool for garnering internal and external support for DDACTS implementation within identified hot spots” (NHTSA 2014). Officers interviewed by the NTSB also stated that the ability of senior officers to communicate the value of data-driven enforcement both within their agency and to the public was essential to the success of data-driven, HVE programs.

Therefore, the NTSB concludes that speeding-related performance measures are needed to determine the effectiveness of data-driven, HVE programs and to communicate the value of these programs to law enforcement officers and the public. The NTSB recommends that NHTSA identify speeding-related performance measures to be used by local law enforcement agencies, including—but not limited to—the numbers and locations of speeding-related crashes of different injury severity levels, speeding citations, and warnings, and establish a consistent method for evaluating data-driven, HVE programs to reduce speeding. Disseminate the performance measures and evaluation method to local law enforcement agencies. The NTSB further recommends that NHTSA identify best practices for communicating with law enforcement officers and the public about the effectiveness of data-driven, HVE programs to reduce speeding, and disseminate the best practices to local law enforcement agencies.
890
NTSB Safety Study
32 3.2.2 Limitations of Speeding-Related Crash Data
FARS uses seven categories to describe the type of speeding in fatal crashes: “exceeded speed limit,” “too fast for conditions,” “racing,” “speeding but specifics unknown,” “unknown if it is speeding-related,” “no driver present,” and “not speeding related” (NHTSA 2015a). 43 Each
vehicle involved in a fatal crash is assigned one of these categories.44 The assignment of these categories is based on analysts’ interpretations of police crash reports. There were 35,055 passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes in 2014; figure 8 shows how they were distributed among the 7 speeding categories. The two most common types of speeding—“exceeded speed limit” and “too fast for conditions”—each represent 8% of all passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes. A very small portion (less than 1%) of vehicles were categorized as racing. There were also 888 passenger vehicles (3%) identified as speeding, but it was not possible to assign them to specific categories. In total, 6,422 passenger vehicles were identified as speeding.

Figure 8. Passenger vehicles in fatal crashes, by speeding category, 2014 Whether the vehicles were speeding could not be determined for 1,411 passenger vehicles (4%), and 27,038 passenger vehicles (77%) were categorized as not speeding. The NTSB further examined these vehicles using travel speed and posted speed limit data in FARS. Among the 27,038 vehicles categorized as not speeding, 918 were traveling at least 10 mph above the posted speed limit prior to the crash. In addition, 57 passenger vehicles categorized as “unknown if speeding” were traveling at least 10 mph above the posted speed limit. This indicates that some vehicles categorized as “not speeding” or “unknown if speeding” were traveling at speeds above the posted speed limit prior to the crash. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the involvement of speeding passenger vehicles in fatal crashes is underestimated.

43 The category “no driver present” is used when “there is no person who was controlling the associated vehicle at the time of the crash” or “when it is unknown if there was a driver present in the vehicle at the time of the crash” (NHTSA 2016a).
44 Appendix D provides definitions for each FARS speeding category.

Racing

0.2% (60)
Exceeded Speed Limit

7.7% (2,686)
Too Fast for Conditions

8.0% (2,788)
Speeding, Specifics Unknown

2.5% (888)
No Driver

0.5% (184)
Unknown if Speeding

4.0% (1,411)
Not Speeding

77.1% (27,038)
Source: FARS
891
NTSB Safety Study
33 Crashes involving the speeding types “exceeded speed limit” and “too fast for conditions” are used in analyzing speeding as a safety issue and formulating strategies to address it. The numbers of vehicles for the two speeding types are comparable, yet they deal with different aspects of speeding. Although the first speeding type is objectively defined by speed limits, the second is subject to the interpretation of officers. There is a large degree of variation among states in the way they apply these definitions. For example, 85% of all speeding-related passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes were assigned “exceeded speed limit” in Massachusetts, whereas 7% of these vehicles were assigned this category in Arkansas (for comparison, the average was 42% for the United States). Although this variation can potentially be explained by posted speed limits and the physical characteristics of the states, it is unclear how much of the variation is due to inconsistencies in police crash reporting.

In some states, there is little distinction between “exceeded speed limit” and “too fast for conditions.” For example, although Michigan and New Mexico use these two categories in their crash report forms, 63% and 52% of all speeding-related vehicles were simply categorized as “speeding, specifics unknown” in these states, respectively. The NTSB examined all state police crash report forms and found that 14 states do not have the category “exceeded speed limit” and 7 states do not have the category “too fast for conditions.” In addition, six states’ police crash report forms only have the category “unsafe speed.”
There are three issues concerning crash reporting at the national level: (1) inconsistent categorization of “exceeded speed limit” and “too fast for conditions,” (2) a lack of detailed categorization of speeding type, and (3) crashes for which speeding involvement is unknown. To develop a national strategy to address speeding as a traffic safety issue, it is essential to identify the types of speeding-related crashes (requiring consistent, detailed categorization of speeding) and to determine the scope of the problem (requiring known speeding involvement). Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the lack of consistent law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes hinders the effective implementation of data-driven speed enforcement programs.

NHTSA and the GHSA jointly publish the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, which contains standards for state crash reporting (GHSA and NHTSA 2012). The guideline is periodically updated and serves as a key document used to “generate the information necessary to improve highway safety within each State and nationally” (GHSA and NHTSA 2012). Regarding speeding, it includes five attributes: “exceeded speed limit,” “too fast for conditions,” “racing,” “unknown,” and “no speeding.” However, adoption of the MMUCC Guideline by states is voluntary. Even if all state crash report forms were compliant with MMUCC Guideline standards, the NTSB interviews with law enforcement agencies indicated that there would continue to be inconsistencies among officers in how the crash forms are filled out. The National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and the IACP are professional associations that provide training and model policies to law enforcement agencies; as such, they may be well positioned to assist NHTSA in improving the quality of speeding-related crash data to help law enforcement agencies more effectively implement data-driven enforcement programs. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA work with the GHSA, the IACP, and the NSA to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding-related MMUCC Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes. Further, the NTSB recommends that the GHSA, the IACP, and the NSA work with NHTSA to develop and implement 892
NTSB Safety Study
34 a program to increase the adoption of speeding-related MMUCC Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes.

3.3 Automated Speed Enforcement
To use limited resources efficiently, some law enforcement agencies are employing data-driven, technology-based solutions for speed enforcement in addition to using data-driven approaches for in-person speed enforcement.

ASE refers to the use of a vehicle speed detection system coupled with a camera to identify speeding vehicles.45 When a speeding vehicle is detected, the camera system is triggered to automatically take photographs of the vehicle, including the license plate and, in some implementations, the driver. Law enforcement and ASE vendor personnel then review the photographic evidence (typically off site and at a later time) to confirm that a speeding violation occurred, and state motor vehicle administration records are used to determine where to mail a speeding citation (Roadway Safety Consortium 2012). In some jurisdictions, the vehicle owner may be cited and assessed a fine (similar to a parking ticket); in others, the vehicle driver may be cited and be assessed a fine and license points (similar to a speeding citation issued in person by an officer).46
ASE has some advantages over in-person speed enforcement by an officer. It provides a force multiplier effect that can free up limited law enforcement resources to be used for other purposes. ASE can operate in locations and under conditions that would make traffic stops dangerous or impractical, and it may reduce congestion from other drivers distracted by traffic stops. Finally, its high rate of speeding detection may provide a higher general deterrence effect (FHWA and NHTSA 2008).47
Several limitations of ASE have also been noted. Because ASE does not stop a driver at the time of the speeding offense, the driver may continue to speed and be unaware of the offense.

Also, the time lag between committing a violation and receiving an ASE penalty may have a lower specific deterrence effect (FHWA and NHTSA 2008).

ASE has been, and continues to be, challenged on several constitutional grounds, including that it violates rights of due process, equal protection (because penalties may differ between ASE citations and in-person citations), and privacy, but courts have consistently found ASE to be constitutional (FHWA and NHTSA 2008). ASE has also been criticized by the public as a tool to generate revenue rather than increase safety. This concern appears to stem from well-publicized cases of automated red light and speed enforcement programs not following best practices, such

45 The speed detection system typically uses radar or light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology, similar to handheld devices used by officers for speed enforcement. 46 Many states use a point system to account for moving violations, in which greater points are assigned to more severe violations; the accumulation of a particular number of points within a set time period can lead to higher insurance premiums or license suspension.
47 In traffic law enforcement, general deterrence refers to “the impact of the threat of legal punishment on the public at large…result[ing] from a belief in the community that traffic laws are being enforced and that a real risk of detection and punishment exists.” In contrast, specific deterrence is “the influence of enforcement on the road user behaviour of convicted offenders, due to previous detection, prosecution, and punishment experiences” (Zaal 1994). 893
NTSB Safety Study
35 as paying vendors on a per-citation basis, giving vendors responsibility for site selection, and not ensuring that yellow lights are appropriately timed (Farmer 2017). Some states have passed laws designed to increase public acceptance of ASE. For example, Maryland requires local jurisdictions to hold a public hearing prior to authorizing ASE and to designate an employee to respond to citizen concerns and review contested citations. Local jurisdictions in Maryland are also prohibited from paying ASE vendors on a per-citation basis (see Maryland Code, Transportation, Section 21-809).

The concern about ASE as a revenue-generation tool was also raised at the most recent congressional hearings on automated enforcement in 2010.48 MAP-21 made it illegal for states to use federal funds to “carry out a program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic enforcement system” (Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1200.13(b)).49 This was a change from previous legislation, which stated that “the [DOT] Secretary may encourage States to use technologically advanced traffic enforcement devices (including the use of automatic speed detection devices such as photo-radar) by law enforcement officers” (Highway Safety Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240).

3.3.1 Historical and Current Usage
Friendswood and La Marque, Texas, became the first US communities to use modern ASE systems when they conducted short-lived trials in 1986.50 The next year, Paradise Valley, Arizona, started the first sustained ASE program, which is still active (Town of Paradise Valley 2017).

As illustrated in figure 9, in the first 20 years of ASE operations, usage grew slowly; by January 2006, 26 ASE programs were active but over one quarter of the 36 programs that had been started up to this point had been discontinued. Between 2006 and 2013, ASE usage increased dramatically, peaking at 148 active programs in 2013. Since then, ASE usage has declined slightly, with 141 active programs as of April 2017, including statewide work zone programs in Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon (IIHS 2016a). These programs are concentrated in 14 states and the District of Columbia. For example, communities in Maryland account for 46 of the ASE programs.

48 Utilization and Impacts of Automated Traffic Enforcement: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 2nd session, June 30, 2010.
49 Title 23 USC section 402 defines an automated traffic enforcement system as “any camera which captures an image of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and speed enforcement, and does not include hand held radar and other devices operated by law enforcement officers to make an on-the-scene traffic stop, issue a traffic citation, or other enforcement action at the time of the violation.” 50 The IIHS provided the NTSB with historical data on ASE programs, including locations, start dates, and (if applicable) end dates, covering the period from March 1986 to April 2017. 894
NTSB Safety Study
36 Figure 9. US communities with ASE programs, by year
There are four general types of ASE units (Miller and others 2016):
• Fixed: These ASE units are permanently mounted in fixed locations. • Speed-on-green: These fixed units are primarily designed to detect red light violations at intersections, but they can also be used for ASE.
• Semi-fixed: These units use fixed housings with removable cameras. With fewer cameras than housings, cameras are rotated among the housings to maintain a deterrent effect at a lower cost, as drivers do not know which housings have cameras at any given time. • Mobile: These units are mounted inside a vehicle (which may be occupied by law enforcement or ASE vendor personnel) or on a towed trailer, and they can be moved to different locations as needed.

3.3.2 Effectiveness
A 2005 systematic review of 14 studies of ASE programs in Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand found crash reductions of 5 to 69%, injury reductions of 12 to 65%, and fatality reductions of 17 to 71% at ASE locations after ASE program implementation (Pilkington and Kinra 2005).

In 2007, NHTSA published a review of 13 studies of ASE programs (including 1 US program). Four of the 13 studies examined fixed ASE programs and generally found that injury crashes at fixed ASE locations declined between 20 and 25% after ASE implementation.

The other 9 studies examined mobile ASE programs and found that injury crashes in mobile ASE zones declined between 21 and 51%. Two of the studies in the NHTSA review looked at the wider effects of ASE; one Canadian study found a provincewide 25% reduction in daytime speeding-related crashes, and the other, a US study, found a statewide 30% reduction in daytime crashes resulting in injuries (Decina and others 2007).

A 2010 review of 28 studies of ASE in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand determined that all 28 studies had found a lower number of crashes in ASE areas 1986: First ASE Programs
April 2017: 141 Active ASE Programs
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
US Communities with Automated Speed
Enforcement Programs
Calendar Year Source: IIHS
895
NTSB Safety Study
37 after ASE implementation. These studies reported reductions of 8 to 49% for all crashes and reductions of 11 to 44% for crashes causing serious injuries or fatalities (Wilson and others 2010).

Most recently, in 2015, the IIHS published a study of the ASE program in Montgomery County, Maryland, which first began in 2007. Montgomery County operates an ASE program on residential streets and in school zones, via a combination of fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile units.

Starting in 2012, some cameras were used in a corridor approach, in which semi-fixed units were rotated among various locations on signed road segments to encourage speed limit compliance along the entire segment. The IIHS study found that, 7.5 years after the program began, ASE was associated with a 10% reduction in mean speeds and a 62% reduction in the likelihood of speeding more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit at ASE sites. The likelihood that a crash involved an incapacitating injury or fatality decreased by 39% on ASE-eligible roads, and the corridor approach further reduced this likelihood by 30% compared to what would have been expected without the corridor approach.51 The likelihood that a crash was speeding-related decreased by 8%. The IIHS also found that, on similar but ASE-ineligible roads in Montgomery County, the likelihood that a crash involved an incapacitating injury or fatality decreased by 27% and the likelihood that a crash was speeding-related decreased by 22%.52 This demonstrated a positive spillover effect, in which the benefits of ASE extended beyond ASE sites (Hu and McCartt 2016).

Several federal agencies consider ASE to be one of the most effective speeding countermeasures. NHTSA evaluated eight speeding countermeasures and gave ASE their highest rating for effectiveness (Goodwin and others 2015).53 In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that ASE “can reduce crashes substantially” and includes ASE as the only speeding-related countermeasure in their Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS), an online tool for states to choose cost-effective interventions to prevent motor vehicle related casualties (CDC 2015a; CDC 2015b).54 Based on studies of operational ASE programs in the United States and other countries, the NTSB concludes that ASE is an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries.

51 To analyze the effects of ASE on crashes, the IIHS study compared the crash experience of Montgomery County residential roads eligible for ASE (that is, those with speed limits from 25 to 35 mph, whether ASE cameras were actually installed) to the crash experience of similar roads in nearby Fairfax County, Virginia, which did not operate an ASE program.
52 To analyze spillover effects on crashes, the IIHS study compared the crash experience of Montgomery County residential roads with similar characteristics as the ASE-eligible roads (aside from having a higher, 40 mph speed limit) to residential roads in Fairfax County, Virginia, with 40 mph speed limits. 53 This rating indicates a countermeasure is “demonstrated to be effective by several high-quality evaluations with consistent results” (Goodwin and others 2015).
54 Each intervention included in MV PICCS is chosen based on (1) empirical evidence that it can substantially reduce motor-vehicle-related injuries and fatalities; (2) currently low usage across the 50 states, with a corresponding potential for additional impact through wider adoption; and (3) the ability of states to implement the intervention. 896
NTSB Safety Study
38 3.3.3 Stakeholder Perceptions
The GHSA has advocated for ASE programs since 2005, calling for (1) states to enact enabling legislation for ASE, (2) a federal incentive grant program to encourage the use of ASE, and (3) the promotion of ASE best practices by NHTSA (GHSA 2005; GHSA 2012; GHSA 2013; GHSA 2016).

AASHTO has supported the use of ASE since 2004, when it called for all states to build public support for ASE, to promote the enactment of ASE laws, and to support the use of ASE (AASHTO 2004). In 2006, the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety (SCOHTS) adopted a policy resolution to further support automated traffic law enforcement, including ASE. Citing the high percentage of crashes involving traffic law violations, the limited resources and staffing difficulties of law enforcement agencies, and the demonstrated effectiveness of automated enforcement in reducing deaths and injuries, SCOHTS encouraged “a top-down leadership approach by the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to implement automated enforcement throughout the country,” including incentives for states to enact enabling legislation (AASHTO 2006).

The IACP, in a 2007 resolution, cited some of the same reasons as AASHTO in calling for the use of ASE in high-crash locations in conjunction with in-person traffic enforcement (IACP 2007). The IACP also included ASE as an effective enforcement strategy in its Traffic Safety Strategies for Law Enforcement guide (IACP 2003).

The National Association of City Transportation Officials, in its 2016 policy document, noted that automated traffic enforcement “is a crucial tool in preventing crashes that result in serious injuries and fatalities,” called for the federal government to allow states to use federal-aid grant funds for automated traffic enforcement, and encouraged states to authorize the use of ASE (NACTO 2016).

The positions of these national associations are in line with the statements made during stakeholder interviews the NTSB conducted for this study. Nearly all of the representatives from state and local transportation departments expressed a positive view of their ASE programs (for those with active programs) or a desire to use ASE (for those without ASE programs). Opinions from officers were more varied. Several officers mentioned the benefits of in-person traffic stops, including the ability to discover other illegal behaviors and outstanding warrants, the ability to apply discretion and take into account mitigating factors, and the opportunity to educate drivers about traffic laws and the risks of speeding. However, only officers in communities without active ASE programs mentioned the benefits of in-person traffic stops as reasons for not implementing ASE. The NTSB interviewed representatives of five law enforcement agencies operating ASE programs. With one exception, every law enforcement representative in a community with ASE expressed the view that their programs should be maintained or expanded, and stated that they did not see ASE as limiting their ability to conduct in-person speed enforcement.55

55 The ASE program in question (which has since been discontinued) operated in about six school zones throughout a county, with two mobile vans that rotated among the schools on a daily basis. The officer responsible for the program indicated that the daily process of moving, configuring, and removing the mobile units was too time consuming for his small force of seven officers, given their other required duties in addition to traffic enforcement. 897
NTSB Safety Study
39 Driver surveys have shown that public support varies depending on the roadway environment for which ASE is used and driver characteristics. In a nationally representative survey conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in 2015, 35% of respondents stated they supported ASE on freeways, 41% supported ASE in urban areas, 45% supported it on residential streets, and 56% supported it in school zones. These figures have not changed substantially since 2012, when the AAA Foundation started surveying drivers about this topic (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2016).56 Also, in a 2009 national public opinion survey conducted by the University of Minnesota, 64% of respondents said they were very or somewhat supportive of ASE in general.

When asked about particular locations for ASE, support was higher for roads near schools (87%), roads where many people have died (81%), and roads where many people violate speed limits (75%). However, support for ASE on all roads was lower (43%). ASE support was also higher among women and older drivers, which are groups that are less likely than males and younger drivers to be involved in speeding-related fatal crashes. In addition, 73% of all survey respondents said that ASE would be an effective way to improve road safety (Munnich and Loveland 2011).

Several studies have shown maintained or increased public support for ASE after program implementation (Retting 2003). In Montgomery County, Maryland, a survey taken 6 months before the county’s ASE program began in 2007 showed that 58% of drivers were in favor of ASE on residential streets. This level of support has been sustained, with followup surveys taken 6 months after the program began and again in 2014, showing 62% of drivers supporting the program (Retting, Farmer, and McCartt 2008; Hu and McCartt 2016). Surveys of drivers in Scottsdale, Arizona, in 2005 and 2006, showed that the percentage of drivers favoring ASE increased from 62% before an ASE program began to 77% after 8 months of operation (Retting, Kyrychenko, and McCartt 2008).

Although most ASE public opinion surveys the NTSB reviewed were directed to drivers, non-drivers are also affected by speeding, especially in urban areas with large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists. A 2012 survey of District of Columbia residents found support for ASE even higher among non-drivers (90% support) than drivers (71% support) (Cicchino, Wells, and McCartt 2014).

3.3.4 Enabling Legislation
Table 7 shows, as of August 2016, the number of states with laws authorizing or prohibiting ASE, and whether these states have active ASE programs operating within the state.57 Of the 14 states with ASE programs, most of these programs are operating with state legislation explicitly authorizing the use of ASE; very few ASE programs operate in states where laws are silent on the topic. This indicates that state-level enabling legislation is an important criterion for local communities to implement ASE programs.

56 It should be noted that the ASE survey questions specifically asked about citing vehicle drivers, an increasingly rare practice since newer ASE programs issue a fine to the vehicle owner. Survey respondents were asked if they support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat, or oppose strongly “using cameras to automatically ticket drivers who drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit” on freeways, residential streets, urban areas, and school zones.
57 Appendix E provides a complete summary of ASE laws by state. 898
NTSB Safety Study
40 Table 7. ASE state laws and active programs as of April 2017 States
Authorizing
ASE
States
Authorizing ASE
with Restrictions
States
without
ASE Laws
States
Prohibiting
ASE
Total
States with
ASE Programs 0
a 10 4 0 14
States without
ASE Programs 0 5 24 7 36
Total 0 15 28 7 50
Source: GHSA and IIHS
a The District of Columbia allows ASE throughout its jurisdiction and operates an ASE program.

The importance of state-level ASE-enabling legislation is supported by interviews the NTSB conducted with state and local transportation departments. Representatives from every state and local transportation department in a state without ASE-enabling legislation mentioned that they would like to implement an ASE program, but they were unwilling to do so without laws in place authorizing its use. The most common reason given for not implementing ASE programs without enabling legislation was that the citations issued by such a program, or the program itself, would be subject to significant legal challenges. For example, several Texas counties operated ASE programs only in unincorporated areas because state law prohibits ASE within Texas municipalities. As of April 2017, these programs have all been discontinued, and the law enforcement agency responsible for administering one such program reported a 50% dismissal rate for all ASE citations challenged in court.

However, even among the states with ASE-enabling legislation, significant restrictions on its use often prevent ASE from effectively reducing speeding-related deaths and injuries in these states. In the 15 states (and the District of Columbia) that authorize ASE, every state places some limitations on the specific municipalities or roadway environments in which ASE can be used; only the District of Columbia allows ASE throughout its jurisdiction. Several states limit the use of ASE to school zones, work zones, roads adjacent to parks, or some combination of these. Other states limit ASE programs to particular cities. For example, outside of school zones, the state of Washington effectively limits ASE to a single camera in the city of Tacoma.58 Further, five states require that an officer or government employee be present at the time when the ASE unit captures the speeding violation.

Although it may be easier to garner community and legislative support for the use of ASE in locations such as school zones, those are generally not the locations most at risk for speeding-related deaths and injuries. For example, FARS data show that only seven US speeding-related fatalities occurred in school zones in 2014. The NTSB interviewed representatives from several agencies with active ASE programs who stated that the locations where ASE was authorized did not adequately address the speeding-related crash hot spots in their

58 Any city “west of the Cascade mountains with a population of more than one hundred ninety-five thousand located in a county with a population of fewer than one million five hundred thousand” may operate a single ASE camera, and the specific site “must have first been authorized by the Washington state legislature as a pilot project for at least one full year” (see Revised Code of Washington 46.63.170). 899
NTSB Safety Study
41 communities, and that they would like the ability to place ASE equipment at the locations most susceptible to speeding-related crashes. The NTSB concludes that the lack of state-level ASE-enabling legislation, and restrictions on the use of ASE in states where legislation exists, have led to underuse of this effective speeding countermeasure. However, the NTSB acknowledges that some restrictions on ASE operations (such as the Maryland prohibition against paying vendors on a per-citation basis) may reflect best practices and are intended to increase public acceptance of ASE without limiting its safety benefits. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the seven states prohibiting ASE amend current laws to authorize state and local agencies to use ASE.
59 The NTSB further recommends that the 28 states without ASE laws authorize state and local agencies to use ASE.
60 Finally, the NTSB recommends that the 15 states with ASE restrictions amend current laws to remove operational and location restrictions on the use of ASE, except where such restrictions are necessary to align with best practices.61

3.3.5 Best Practices
At the federal level, the primary source of best practices for establishing, operating, and evaluating ASE programs is the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FHWA and NHTSA 2008). These guidelines are designed to be a resource for “program managers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and other individuals responsible for the planning and operation of the program” and contain best practices in over 40 topic areas related to ASE, such as legal authorities, site selection, marketing, operator training, equipment maintenance, violation processing and adjudication, and program evaluation.

However, NHTSA has found that these guidelines are neither well known, nor well adhered to, by ASE program managers. In 2011, NHTSA conducted a survey of all 107 communities identified at that time as current or recent operators of ASE programs (Miller and others 2016).

The objectives of the study were to determine how aligned the ASE programs were with the federal guidelines. However, 63% of the survey respondents indicated that they were not even aware of the federal ASE guidelines.62
To determine these programs’ degree of alignment to the guidelines, survey questions were developed for 35 topic areas in which the guidelines provided “clear guidance terms such as ‘shall,’ ‘should,’ ’critical,’ and ‘must.’” In only 7 of the 35 areas did 80% or more of the surveyed

59 These seven states are Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

See appendix E.
60 These 28 states are Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. See appendix E.
61 These 15 states are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. See appendix E. 62 Survey respondents included representatives from current and recently discontinued ASE programs at the time the survey was conducted and representatives from programs that began before and after the ASE guidelines were published. Programs starting before the ASE guidelines were published in 2008 reported 7% higher awareness of the guidelines (34%) than those programs starting in 2008 or later (27%). The survey was mailed to the head of the agency responsible for ASE within each community. NHTSA stated that “it appears that most of the agency staff assigned to complete the survey had operational responsibilities and/or oversight for ASE” but “the person assigned to complete the survey may not have been involved when the program was first established” (Miller and others 2016). 900
NTSB Safety Study
42 programs align with the guidelines. Further, in 11 of these 35 areas, less than 40% of the surveyed ASE programs aligned with the guidelines. For example, 31% of ASE programs aligned with the guideline to treat speeding violations by government vehicles the same as violations by the general public, and 27% of ASE programs aligned with the guideline to establish a stakeholder committee to guide program development (Miller and others 2016).

The NHTSA survey acknowledges that some of the low alignment to federal ASE guidelines may be due to changes in technology and operations that the 2008 guidelines do not reflect. For example, the guidelines recommend that the vehicle driver be identified and cited.

However, in accordance with state and local laws, most recently established ASE programs send citations to the vehicle owner, a practice which has been shown to be effective (Hu and McCartt 2016). In addition, the survey noted that the increased use of unstaffed mobile units—a technology not available when the guidelines were written—could affect how an ASE program is operated and perceived.

The NTSB concludes that federal guidelines for ASE programs do not reflect the latest technologies and operating practices and are not very effective because their existence is not well known among the ASE program administrators. The NTSB therefore recommends that the FHWA work with NHTSA to update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines to reflect the latest ASE technologies and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among ASE program administrators.

3.3.6 Point-to-Point Enforcement
One particular ASE technology that is relatively new is point-to-point enforcement (also referred to as average speed enforcement or section control). The first use of point-to-point enforcement was in the Netherlands in 1997; since then, its use has spread to other European countries, Australia, and New Zealand, but such systems have not yet been implemented in the United States (Soole, Fleiter, and Watson 2012).

Point-to-point enforcement uses the times a vehicle passes two points to calculate an average speed over the length of road between the points. Continuous visual observation of a vehicle is not necessary over the entire section of roadway, as a time-synchronized camera system captures vehicle images at the section endpoints and then uses automatic license plate recognition technology to match the images and determine which vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit.

Thus, point-to-point enforcement can be used on highway segments many miles long, with multiple measurement points as necessary.

Point-to-point enforcement technology is best suited for limited-access highways with few entry or exit points on the designated highway section, for which the designated section is the fastest route between the section endpoints. This is a road type for which ASE in general has not been used extensively in the United States, despite interstate highways and non-interstate freeways and expressways accounting for 17% of speeding-related fatalities in 2014 (NCSA 2016a).

Several benefits of point-to-point enforcement have been noted in relation to fixed or mobile ASE implementations. By enforcing the speed limit over a longer segment of roadway rather than at discrete points, drivers are encouraged to drive the speed limit over longer distances. 901
NTSB Safety Study
43 In addition, point-to-point enforcement avoids the problem of drivers slowing prior to a known ASE site and then resuming an excessive speed after passing the camera (Lahrmann and others 2016).

Although it has not been evaluated as extensively as other types of ASE, studies have shown that point-to-point enforcement provides safety benefits, including some advantages over fixed ASE units. A 2013 review of studies in Europe and Australia found that point-to-point enforcement generally reduces average speeds, 85th percentile speeds, speed variability, fatal crashes, and serious injury crashes (Soole, Watson, and Fleiter 2013). A 2014 review of 15 fixed ASE studies and 4 point-to-point enforcement studies found that point-to-point enforcement was slightly more effective in reducing crashes than fixed ASE, with fatal and serious injury crashes declining by 51% for fixed ASE and 56% for point-to-point enforcement (Høye 2014).

Based on the experience of implementing point-to-point enforcement in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Austroads (the association of Australian and New Zealand transportation agencies) has developed best practices for point-to-point enforcement, which address operational, technological, legislative, evidentiary, public education, evaluation, and privacy considerations (Soole, Fleiter, and Watson 2012). However, this guidance may not be completely appropriate in the United States, where point-to-point enforcement would potentially be subject to the same types of legal arguments that have been made against other types of automated enforcement. Best practices for point-to-point enforcement in the United States would help ensure that enforcement operations are conducted in a legally appropriate manner, but US federal guidelines for ASE do not include any information on point-to-point enforcement (FHWA and NHTSA 2008).

The NTSB concludes that point-to-point speed enforcement has been shown to be an effective speeding countermeasure internationally, but it is not currently used in the United States.

Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FHWA work with NHTSA to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States and, based on the results of that assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate.

3.4 Intelligent Speed Adaptation
Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is a vehicle technology that studies have shown is effective at reducing speeding. ISA systems determine the speed limit in effect by comparing a vehicle’s global positioning system (GPS) location against a database of posted speed limits and using onboard cameras to recognize speed limit signs (Goodwin and others 2015).

The European Commission defines three levels of ISA (European Commission 2015):
• Open ISA: An advisory system that issues visual or aural alerts to the driver when the speed limit is exceeded; the driver is responsible for slowing the vehicle. • Half-Open ISA: A system that increases back pressure on the accelerator when the speed limit is exceeded, making it more difficult (but not impossible) to exceed the speed limit. • Closed ISA: A system that electronically limits the speed of a vehicle, preventing drivers from exceeding the speed limit.
902
NTSB Safety Study
44 The primary advantage of ISA compared to conventional speed limiters (also known as speed governors) is that the limiting speed is the posted speed limit in effect at a particular location, rather than a single, fixed speed. Conventional speed limiters have been voluntarily used by US commercial truck and bus fleets for their safety and fuel efficiency benefits, and other countries have required their use on trucks and buses since the 1990s (NTSB 2012). However, because conventional speed limiters cannot prevent speeding in locations where the speed limit is lower than the governed speed, the NTSB has previously recommended that heavy vehicles, including trucks, buses, and motorcoaches, be equipped with advanced speed-limiting technology such as ISA (NTSB 2012; NTSB 2015).63

3.4.1 Current Passenger Vehicle Implementations
Many manufacturers offer Open ISA capabilities for the US passenger vehicle market. The earliest and most common implementations show the current speed limit on the vehicle’s navigation display. Some of these systems also change the display when the speed limit is exceeded (for example, highlighting the speed limit in amber or red). More recently, manufacturers have started displaying these speed limit alerts within the driver’s instrument cluster, or projecting the information onto the windshield on a head-up display. Third-party Open ISA systems are available for retrofit (Mobileye 2017). In addition, drivers may use portable electronic devices as their source of navigation and speed limit data. Increasingly, these devices can interface directly with passenger vehicles through capabilities such as Android Auto and Apple CarPlay (Google 2017; Apple 2017).

Examples of currently available US vehicle capabilities related to ISA include the following:
• On General Motors vehicles with a navigation system, the current GPS-derived speed limit can be displayed on the navigation display, within the instrument cluster, or on a head-up display if so equipped, but no warnings are issued when exceeding the limit. In addition, as part of General Motors’ Teen Driver system, many General Motors vehicles can issue a visual warning and chime when a user-set speed (between 40 and 75 mph) is exceeded, and owners can also enable a speed limiter fixed to 85 mph (Chevrolet 2016). • On Toyota vehicles with a navigation system, the current GPS-derived speed limit can be displayed on the navigation display or in the instrument cluster. Drivers can also enable a yellow caution indicator that is displayed in the instrument cluster when the speed limit is exceeded (Toyota Motor Sales 2016).
• Tesla vehicles equipped with the Autopilot driver assistance system include an ISA capability called Speed Assist (Tesla Motors 2016). Speed Assist uses sign detection and GPS data (where no signs are present) to determine the current speed limit. If the driver has enabled Speed Assist, a speed limit sign is displayed on the instrument panel whenever a speed limit can be determined; when the speed limit (plus or minus a driver-specified offset) is exceeded, this speed limit sign enlarges and a chime optionally sounds.64 Speed Assist is also integrated with Tesla’s Traffic-Aware Cruise Control; when the driver pulls

63 NTSB Safety Recommendation H-12-21 to NHTSA is currently classified “Open—Acceptable Response.” 64 Instead of basing the speed alerts on the posted speed limit, a driver can also manually specify a fixed speed between 20 and 140 mph for alerting.
903
NTSB Safety Study
45 and holds the cruise control lever, the cruising speed will be set to the Speed Assist speed.

However, changes in posted speed limits are not automatically followed; the driver must pull the cruise lever again for the cruising speed to match a new speed limit. • On Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with the MyKey feature, drivers can activate a set of user-configured restricted driving modes when starting the vehicle with a MyKey. These modes include visual and aural warnings when a user-set speed is exceeded, and fixed speed limits of 65, 70, 75, or 80 mph, which are also accompanied by visual and aural warnings. Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with GPS can also display the current GPS-derived speed limit in the instrument cluster (Ford Motor Company 2016). • Audi vehicles equipped with GPS, sign-detecting cameras, and adaptive cruise control include a capability called Predictive Control. When Predictive Control is activated, the adaptive cruise control will adjust the vehicle’s speed to match the currently detected speed limit, and it will automatically accelerate or decelerate the vehicle when a new speed limit is detected (Audi 2017).

These features are often marketed toward teen drivers and their parents. Automobile manufacturers typically only make these features available for a subset of their models, and the purchase of certain option packages (such as those that include a GPS navigation system) may be required.

The systems offered by automobile manufacturers in the United States do not yet meet the definitions of Half-Open or Closed ISA. However, third-party products are available for retrofit (Speedshield Technologies 2012). In addition, Half-Open ISA capabilities are offered by automobile manufacturers in other countries. For example, since 2015, the Ford S-Max has been sold in Europe with an optional Intelligent Speed Limiter. When activated by the driver using controls on the steering wheel, the vehicle is limited to speed limits detected via sign recognition.65 If the driver fully depresses the accelerator, the speed limiter will turn off until the vehicle speed is again below the speed limit (Ford Motor Company 2015).

3.4.2 Effectiveness
ISA has been studied extensively internationally, and to a lesser degree in the United States (Blomberg and others 2015; De Leonardis, Huey, and Robinson 2014; Regan and others 2006; Várhelyi and others 2004). These studies have generally found ISA to be effective in reducing speeding.

For example, in a 2014 NHTSA study, 78 “chronic speeders” in Maryland drove with an Open ISA system for 4 weeks (De Leonardis, Huey, and Robinson 2014).66 The mean percentage of each trip that study participants drove over 8 mph above the posted speed limit decreased from 18% to 13% when the Open ISA system was used.

65 The driver can also specify an offset above or below the speed limit, so that the Intelligent Speed Limiter will, for example, limit the vehicle speed to the posted speed limit plus 5 mph. 66 Study participants had received at least three speeding violations in the 3 years before the study. 904
NTSB Safety Study
46 In Lund, Sweden, 284 vehicles were equipped with a Half-Open ISA system for 5 to 11 months in 2000 (Várhelyi and others 2004). ISA usage resulted in statistically significant changes in mean speeds (decreasing between 0.9 and 3.7 kilometers per hour (km/h)) on four of the six road types examined in the study.67 Eighty-fifth percentile speeds on these road types decreased between 1.0 and 7.6 km/h, and speed variance also decreased.

In a study published by NHTSA in 2015, a Half-Open ISA system was tested with 18- to 24-year-olds in Kalamazoo, Michigan, using a fixed course of six road segments with different speed limits (Blomberg and others 2015). The Half-Open ISA system showed statistically significant reductions in both speeding 5 or more mph over the speed limit and speed variance for five of the six segments.68 The NTSB concludes that ISA is an effective vehicle technology to reduce speeding.

3.4.3 Stakeholder Perceptions
Most of the automobile manufacturers the NTSB interviewed for this study did not collect usage data for their Open ISA implementations. However, one manufacturer that offers an Open ISA system with visual warnings as a standard feature (defaulted to be active) reported that 3% of vehicle owners disable the feature. Another automobile manufacturer noted that a primary motivation for developing its Open ISA system capability was customer interest.

When asked about equipping vehicles with more restrictive Half-Open or Closed ISA systems, the automobile manufacturers interviewed for this study all indicated that it was technically feasible. However, they also expressed several concerns, including limitations of sign-detection cameras and speed limit databases, a desire to retain the ability to exceed the speed limit in emergency situations, and the need to support customers who operate their vehicles off public roads (for example, people who use their vehicles for racing).

3.4.4 Performance and Equipage
The effectiveness of a particular ISA system depends on its underlying speed limit detection technology. For those systems that rely on GPS maps, the speed limit data must be complete, accurate, and timely. However, many vehicle map databases are updated infrequently and typically require owners to take action to purchase updated data. For example, navigation maps for Honda vehicles are typically updated once per year, and these updates cost about $150 (HERE 2016). Although the automobile manufacturers interviewed for this study could not provide quantitative data, they all estimated that the number of vehicle owners regularly purchasing map updates is quite low.

For those systems that rely on sign-detecting cameras, performance is dependent on weather conditions, lighting conditions, obstructions (such as vegetation or other vehicles), speed limit sign format, and sign placement. However, the impact of these factors on the performance of

67 The four road types with statistically significant changes were arterials with speed limits between 50 and 70 km/h, and a “main street” with a speed limit of 50 km/h. The remaining two road types (a “main street, mixed traffic” with a 50 km/h speed limit and a “central street” with a 30 km/h speed limit) did not show significant differences between ISA-active and inactive test conditions. 68 Traffic congestion on the sixth segment limited the opportunities to speed. 905
NTSB Safety Study
47 ISA systems is difficult to quantitatively assess, because ISA performance standards do not exist.

Most manufacturers only provide a list of qualitative ISA performance disclaimers in their owner’s manuals. For example, the Tesla Model S owner’s manual states that owners should “not rely on Speed Assist to determine the appropriate speed limit” (Tesla Motors 2016).

Finally, ISA must actively be used to be effective. Several studies that measured driving behavior before, during, and after the ISA test phase have found that speeding reverts to (or close to) pre-ISA levels once the system is turned off (Blomberg and others 2015; De Leonardis, Huey, and Robinson 2014). In addition, several subjects in a Half-Open ISA study were able to speed by pushing harder on the accelerator pedal, accelerating beyond the speed limit, and then coasting above the speed limit (Blomberg and others 2015). These observations highlight the importance of defaulting any passenger vehicle ISA implementations to be activated/on and of limiting the ability of drivers to disable or defeat the system.

One way to incentivize manufacturers to include advanced safety capabilities that satisfy minimum performance standards in their vehicles is through crash testing and safety rating programs. In the United States, these include NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) (NHTSA 2016b) and the IIHS “Top Safety Pick” awards (IIHS 2016b).

The European NCAP includes ISA as a rating factor and provides test protocols for evaluating a manufacturer’s ISA implementation (Euro NCAP 2015). However, ISA is not incorporated into the US NCAP. One automobile manufacturer interviewed for this study stated that the inclusion of ISA in the European NCAP was a primary reason why an ISA capability was developed for its vehicles sold in Europe. In addition, safety ratings programs like the NCAP have been shown to increase sales of high-rated vehicles relative to lower-rated vehicles (IIHS 2013).

The NTSB concludes that new car safety ratings are effective in incentivizing consumers to purchase passenger vehicles with advanced safety systems. The NTSB therefore recommends that NHTSA incentivize passenger vehicle manufacturers and consumers to adopt ISA systems by, for example, including ISA in the NCAP.

3.5 National Leadership
In interviews the NTSB conducted, national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that—unlike other crash factors such as alcohol impairment or unbelted occupants—speeding has few negative social consequences associated with it, and it does not have a leader campaigning to increase public awareness about the issue at the national level.

Stakeholders further stated that they thought the dangers of speeding are not well-publicized, that society therefore underappreciates the risks of speeding, and that the resulting complacency among drivers has led to speeding becoming a common behavior even though surveys indicate that drivers generally disapprove of other drivers speeding. Stakeholders also expressed the belief that, to gradually change public perceptions of speeding, a coordinated effort among safety advocacy groups, with strong leadership from the federal government, is needed. This section describes several ways that national organizations can take a greater leadership role in addressing speeding. 906
NTSB Safety Study
48 3.5.1 Traffic Safety Campaigns and Public Awareness
Traffic safety campaigns use communications and outreach to increase public awareness of a traffic safety topic. When campaigns also include increased enforcement, they have been shown to be highly effective countermeasures for several traffic safety issues, such as impaired driving and occupant protection (Goodwin and others 2015). For example, a key component of the NHTSA-coordinated campaign to increase seat belt usage is “Click It or Ticket,” an annual, 2-week enforcement mobilization that has been conducted nationally since 2003 (Hinch, Solomon, and Tison 2014).

NHTSA has stated that traffic safety campaigns for speeding show promise; however, the safety benefits have varied greatly among campaigns that have been studied (Goodwin and others 2015). For example, pilot tests of two campaigns in Peoria and Phoenix, Arizona, showed 17 and 31% increases, respectively, in the proportion of drivers complying with the posted speed limit, and 14 and 29% decreases, respectively, in the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit by 7 mph or more (Blomberg and Cleven 2006). Also, a 4-week trial of increased speeding enforcement in London in 2008 found that 85th percentile speeds decreased by 1.9 mph on the targeted section of roadway, and 1.1 mph at nearby sites not subject to increased enforcement.

There were also greater reductions at those sites where pre-trial mean speeds were highest, and the reductions persisted for 2 weeks after the trial concluded (Walter, Broughton, and Knowles 2011).

In contrast, a study of two 6-month campaigns focusing on aggressive driving in Tucson, Arizona, and Marion County, Indiana, found that the proportion of crashes related to aggressive driving decreased by 8% during the Tucson campaign but increased by 6% during the Marion County campaign (Stuster 2004).

The varying benefits of these traffic safety campaigns for speeding can be explained by two factors: inconsistent implementations and low levels of awareness of the campaigns among drivers. For example, the Marion County campaign relied on overtime hours by 42 officers from six different law enforcement agencies, operating on average 1 out of every 3 days, whereas the Tucson campaign used two full-time and two part-time officers who operated almost every day.

These two campaigns also differed in their relative expenditures for labor, equipment, and publicity, and in their focus on single or multiple traffic violations. In a survey conducted after the Peoria and Phoenix campaigns, 26% of neighborhood residents mentioned the campaigns’ “Heed the Speed” slogan. In contrast, a 2012 survey of the long-running national occupant protection campaign found that 85% of respondents were aware of its “Click It or Ticket” slogan (Hinch, Solomon, and Tison 2014).

Research has shown that the communications component of a traffic safety campaign increases safety benefits. One review of 67 studies on traffic safety campaigns in 12 countries found that public information and education reduced crashes by 9% on average (Phillips, Ulleberg, and Vaa 2011). A study of an ASE program in North Carolina likewise found that 8 to 9% of the crash reduction effects were due to media coverage of the program (Moon and Hummer 2010).

These results highlight the importance of public media efforts to the success of traffic safety campaigns.

NHTSA, through its Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) group, provides marketing materials and advice for states to use in developing traffic safety campaigns, and coordinates national traffic 907
NTSB Safety Study
49 safety events (NHTSA 2016c). Table 8 shows the traffic safety events that NHTSA sponsored in 2016, including three national enforcement mobilizations, which addressed distraction, occupant protection, and alcohol impairment. None of the events addressed speeding.

Table 8. 2016 NHTSA Traffic Safety Marketing events
Event Type Date(s) Description (Slogan)
Official Month
April
National Distracted Driving Awareness Month
Bicycle Safety Month
May Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month
July Vehicle Theft Prevention Month
August Back to School Safety Month
Official Week
May 29-June 4 Tire Safety Week
September 18-24 Child Passenger Safety Week
October 16-22 National Teen Driver Safety Week
National Enforcement
Mobilization
April 8-13 Distracted Driving (U Drive. U Text. U Pay.) May 16-30 Occupant Protection (Click It or Ticket)
August 17-September 5 Impaired Driving (Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over) Holiday with
Traffic Safety Emphasis
Super Bowl, St. Patrick’s
Day, Cinco de Mayo,
Fourth of July, Halloween,
Holiday Season
(November 25-Jan 1)
Impaired Driving
Thanksgiving Occupant Protection
Although NHTSA does not currently coordinate any national activities related to speeding, TSM does make available marketing materials that state and local agencies can use in their own campaigns, using the slogans “Stop Speeding Before It Stops You” and “Obey the Sign or Pay the Fine” (NHTSA 2016c). However, in the absence of a national speeding campaign, there is incomplete participation among states, and little consistency among the individual state campaigns. A 2011 study found that 32 states funded public awareness efforts for speeding; 25 of these states reported using a total of 30 different campaign slogans, and 8 states used the NHTSA slogans (GHSA 2012). In contrast, all 50 states participate in the national occupant protection campaign, and they all use the campaign’s “Click It or Ticket” slogan.

Participation in the NHTSA-coordinated, national traffic safety campaigns is high because states are required to participate in order to receive some federal highway safety grant funds. For example, under the Highway Safety Program, each state must “provide satisfactory assurances” that the state will implement all “national law enforcement mobilizations and high-visibility law enforcement mobilizations coordinated by the Secretary” of Transportation (23 USC section 402).

In addition, a state is only eligible to receive National Priority Safety Programs occupant protection grants if it “participates in the Click It or Ticket national mobilization” (23 USC section 405).

During NTSB interviews with stakeholders, including safety advocates, state transportation officials, and officers, the lack of a national traffic safety campaign was cited as a 908
NTSB Safety Study
50 key issue hindering the effective implementation of speeding prevention programs in the United States. The GHSA has also called for NHTSA to “sponsor a national high visibility enforcement campaign and support public awareness efforts to address the issues of speed and aggressive driving” (GHSA 2012). The NTSB concludes that traffic safety campaigns that include highly publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding countermeasure, but their inconsistent and infrequent use by states hinders their effectiveness.

Despite the lack of a national speeding campaign, recently developed national efforts to achieve zero US traffic fatalities (called Vision Zero or Toward Zero Deaths) recognize the impact of speeding on traffic safety. For example, the Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee consists of eight “organizations and agencies that own, operate, enforce and maintain our nation’s roads” with technical support from the FHWA, the FMCSA, and NHTSA.69 The committee has developed Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety, which identifies six strategies to move toward safer drivers and passengers: increasing seat belt use, reducing speeding-related fatalities, reducing impaired driving, reducing driver distraction, increasing the safety of teen drivers, and increasing the safety of older drivers (The Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee 2014). Except for the topics of speeding and older drivers, all of these strategies have NHTSA-coordinated traffic safety events. The international traffic safety community has also recognized speeding as an important problem to address. For example, speeding is included in the United Nations’ Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020, and the Fourth United Nations Global Road Safety Week (May 8-14, 2017) focused on speed management (WHO 2011; WHO 2017). However, this level of importance is not reflected in the schedule of national traffic safety events coordinated by NHTSA. The NTSB concludes that the current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety issue is lower than warranted and insufficient to achieve the goal of zero traffic fatalities in the United States.

In October 2016, NHTSA, along with the FHWA and FMCSA, joined the National Safety Council (NSC) to launch the “Road to Zero” initiative and coalition (NHTSA 2016d). The purpose of the initiative is “to eliminate traffic fatalities within 30 years” (National Safety Council 2017).

This growing coalition has over 200 members with a steering committee that includes the three aforementioned DOT agencies, the NSC, AASHTO, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and others. All of these organizations have their own diverse initiatives and programs to increase traffic safety in the United States. Also, safety advocacy organizations have had success in developing, launching, and implementing nationwide public awareness, education, and media efforts. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue. The program should include, but not be limited to, initiating an annual enforcement mobilization directed at speeding drivers.

69 The eight organizations on the Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee are the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AASHTO, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the GHSA, the IACP, the National Association of County Engineers, the National Association of State Emergency Medical Service Officials, and the National Local Technical Assistance Program Association. 909
NTSB Safety Study
51 3.5.2 Funding for Speed Management Programs
Another way to increase public awareness of speeding as a traffic safety issue is by providing states incentives to be more engaged in addressing speeding. As discussed in section

2.7, the three primary federal-aid programs for traffic safety are the Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway Safety Program, and National Priority Safety Programs. The latter two both fund non-engineering (that is, behavioral) countermeasures, but their funding methods differ in several important ways. Highway Safety Program grants are allocated based on the population and road miles in each state, and these funds can be spent on any of 10 different focus areas (of which speeding is one) according to a state’s Highway Safety Plan. It is not possible to determine, at the national level, how these grants are designated for speeding. In contrast, National Priority Safety Programs funds are directed toward seven different priority areas, the funding level for each priority area (rather than the overall total) is established by Congress, and each priority area has specific eligibility requirements that incentivize states to conduct particular traffic safety activities.70 Speeding is not one of the seven priority areas. Table 9 shows how funds for these programs were allocated in fiscal year 2016.

Table 9. Federal funds allocated to states for behavioral traffic safety programs, fiscal year 2016 Program Focus/Priority Area
Allocated Fundsb
Amount ($) %
Highway Safety Program (All Grants) 260,034,506 44.8
National Priority
Safety Programs
Impaired Drivinga 231,558,630 39.9
Occupant Protection 43,136,833 7.4
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 39,016,291 6.7 Motorcycle Safety 4,075,075 0.7
Distracted Driving 2,334,950 0.4
Graduated Driver Licensing 0 0.0
Nonmotorized Safetyc n/a n/a
Total $580,156,285 100.0
Source: GHSA
a
Includes open container (23 CFR Part 154) and repeat offender (23 CFR Part 164) funds. b Excludes Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Indian Nations. c Nonmotorized Safety was added as a priority area with the passage of the FAST Act in 2015, and Nonmotorized Safety grants were first awarded in fiscal year 2017.

70 For example, to receive occupant protection funds, all states must meet certain criteria, including participating in the “Click It or Ticket” national campaign. However, states with lower rates of seat belt use must meet additional criteria and their use of the funds is restricted to particular activities involving enforcement, child safety seats, and information systems (23 CFR Part 405). Thereby, National Priority Safety Program grants encourage states with lower safety performance to take specific actions to improve their outcomes in each priority area. 910
NTSB Safety Study
52 The Highway Safety Program allows states significant leeway to spend funds according to their particular traffic safety priorities, including speeding; it does not provide a means to encourage states to focus on national priorities. In contrast, National Priority Safety Program grants are specifically designed to encourage states to focus additional traffic safety efforts in areas of national importance, but these funds currently cannot be used for speed management. The NTSB concludes that current federal-aid programs do not require or incentivize states to fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries. Thus, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA establish a program to incentivize state and local speed management activities.

3.5.3 DOT Cross-Agency Coordination
In 2005, the DOT Speed Management Team produced a strategic plan to reduce speeding-related fatalities; that plan was updated in 2014 (DOT 2005; DOT 2014). The 2014 Speed Management Program Plan includes 71 planned actions to be completed within 5 years in the areas of data and data-driven approaches, research and evaluation, technology, enforcement and adjudication, engineering, and education and communications. Twenty-nine of the actions are in “priority areas that warrant immediate, more focused attention,” and 22 of the actions are carryovers from the 2005 plan (DOT 2014).

The focus areas in the Speed Management Program Plan address several of the same safety issues identified in this study, and the planned actions complement the recommendations the NTSB makes as a result. For example, actions related to ASE include developing a model contract for states and municipalities to use when working with a vendor, and identifying “practices that contribute to public acceptance and reinforce fairness” of ASE (DOT 2014). Additionally, actions related to a national traffic safety campaign for speeding include evaluating the existing communications materials, developing new creative concepts, and launching a new communications campaign.

However, progress on the Speed Management Program Plan actions has been slow.

Table 10 shows the status of the 71 planned actions as of December 2016, which members of the Speed Management Team manually compiled in response to the NTSB’s request. Halfway through the 5-year plan timeline, 8 of the 71 planned actions have been completed, 35 are ongoing, 25 have yet to start, and 3 actions have been discontinued due to the MAP-21 prohibition on using federal grant funds for ASE.
911
NTSB Safety Study
53 Table 10. Status of DOT Speed Management Program Plan actions as of December 2016 Status
All Actions Priority Actions
Number % Number %
Discontinued 3 4.2 0 0.0
Pending 25 35.2 7 24.1
Ongoing 35 49.3 18 62.1
Completed 8 11.3 4 13.8
Total 71 100.0 29 100.0
Source: DOT Speed Management Team
Members of the DOT Speed Management Team stated that there is no one responsible for tracking the overall progress of the planned actions or ensuring that they are incorporated into DOT agency work plans. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the DOT Speed Management Program Plan identifies important actions to reduce speeding-related fatalities, but the DOT has not tracked or ensured the timely implementation of these actions. Consequently, the NTSB recommends that the DOT complete the actions called for in its 2014 Speed Management Program Plan, and periodically publish status reports on the progress it has made. 912
NTSB Safety Study
54 4 Conclusions

4.1 Findings

1. Speed increases the likelihood of serious and fatal crash involvement, although the exact relationship is complex due to many factors.

2. Speed increases the injury severity of a crash.

3. Drivers report understanding that speeding is a threat to safety but acknowledge it is a common driving behavior in the United States.

4. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidance for setting speed limits in speed zones is based on the 85th percentile speed, but there is not strong evidence that, within a given traffic flow, the 85th percentile speed equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate on all road types.

5. Unintended consequences of the reliance on using the 85th percentile speed for changing speed limits in speed zones include higher operating speeds and new, higher 85th percentile speeds in the speed zones, and an increase in operating speeds outside the speed zones.

6. Expert systems such as USLIMITS2 can improve the setting of speed limits by allowing traffic engineers to systematically incorporate crash statistics and other factors in addition to the 85th percentile speed, and to validate their engineering studies.

7. The safe system approach to setting speed limits in urban areas is an improvement over conventional approaches because it considers the vulnerability of all road users.

8. Speeding-related performance measures are needed to determine the effectiveness of data-driven, high-visibility enforcement programs and to communicate the value of these programs to law enforcement officers and the public.

9. The involvement of speeding passenger vehicles in fatal crashes is underestimated.

10. The lack of consistent law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes hinders the effective implementation of data-driven speed enforcement programs.

11. Automated speed enforcement is an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries.

12. The lack of state-level automated speed enforcement (ASE) enabling legislation, and restrictions on the use of ASE in states where legislation exists, have led to underuse of this effective speeding countermeasure.

13. Federal guidelines for automated speed enforcement (ASE) programs do not reflect the latest technologies and operating practices and are not very effective because their existence is not well known among the ASE program administrators. 913
NTSB Safety Study
55 14. Point-to-point speed enforcement has been shown to be an effective speeding countermeasure internationally, but it is not currently used in the United States.

15. Intelligent speed adaptation is an effective vehicle technology to reduce speeding.

16. New car safety ratings are effective in incentivizing consumers to purchase passenger vehicles with advanced safety systems.

17. Traffic safety campaigns that include highly publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding countermeasure, but their inconsistent and infrequent use by states hinders their effectiveness.

18. The current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety issue is lower than warranted and insufficient to achieve the goal of zero traffic fatalities in the United States.

19. Current federal-aid programs do not require or incentivize states to fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries.

20. The US Department of Transportation (DOT) Speed Management Program Plan identifies important actions to reduce speeding-related fatalities, but the DOT has not tracked or ensured the timely implementation of these actions.
914
NTSB Safety Study
56 5 Recommendations
As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendations:

To the US Department of Transportation:

Complete the actions called for in your 2014 Speed Management Program Plan, and periodically publish status reports on the progress you have made. (H-17-18) To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Identify speeding-related performance measures to be used by local law enforcement agencies, including―but not limited to―the numbers and locations of speeding-related crashes of different injury severity levels, speeding citations, and warnings, and establish a consistent method for evaluating data-driven, high-visibility enforcement programs to reduce speeding. Disseminate the performance measures and evaluation method to local law enforcement agencies. (H-17-19)
Identify best practices for communicating with law enforcement officers and the public about the effectiveness of data-driven, high-visibility enforcement programs to reduce speeding, and disseminate the best practices to local law enforcement agencies. (H-17-20)
Work with the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes. (H-17-21) Work with the Federal Highway Administration to update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines to reflect the latest automated speed enforcement (ASE) technologies and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among ASE program administrators. (H-17-22)
Work with the Federal Highway Administration to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States and, based on the results of that assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. (H-17-23)
Incentivize passenger vehicle manufacturers and consumers to adopt intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) systems by, for example, including ISA in the New Car Assessment Program. (H-17-24)
915
NTSB Safety Study
57 Collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue. The program should include, but not be limited to, initiating an annual enforcement mobilization directed at speeding drivers. (H-17-25) Establish a program to incentivize state and local speed management activities. (H-17-26)
To the Federal Highway Administration:

Revise Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices so that the factors currently listed as optional for all engineering studies are required, require that an expert system such as USLIMITS2 be used as a validation tool, and remove the guidance that speed limits in speed zones should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. (H-17-27)
Revise Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to, at a minimum, incorporate the safe system approach for urban roads to strengthen protection for vulnerable road users. (H-17-28)
Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines to reflect the latest automated speed enforcement (ASE) technologies and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among ASE program administrators. (H-17-29) Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States and, based on the results of that assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. (H-17-30)
To the seven states prohibiting automated speed enforcement:

Amend current laws to authorize state and local agencies to use automated speed enforcement. (H-17-31)
To the 28 states without automated speed enforcement laws:

Authorize state and local agencies to use automated speed enforcement. (H-17-32) To the 15 states with automated speed enforcement restrictions:

Amend current laws to remove operational and location restrictions on the use of automated speed enforcement, except where such restrictions are necessary to align with best practices. (H-17-33)
916
NTSB Safety Study
58 To the Governors Highway Safety Association:

Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes. (H-17-34) To the International Association of Chiefs of Police:

Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety Association, and the National Sheriffs’ Association to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes. (H-17-35) To the National Sheriffs’ Association:

Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes. (H-17-36)

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
ROBERT L. SUMWALT, III CHRISTOPHER A. HART
Acting Chairman Member
EARL F. WEENER
Member
T. BELLA DINH-ZARR
Member
Adopted: July 25, 2017
917
NTSB Safety Study
59 Board Member Statement
Member T. Bella Dinh-Zarr filed the following statement on August 1, 2017, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Speeding has long been an important but difficult safety issue to address. This publication is the first study on speeding undertaken by the NTSB in our 50-year history. I commend staff for proposing and completing this study and for their careful analysis of current research. As staff explained in response to my questions during the Board Meeting, this study was meant to cover certain aspects of speeding and certain solutions. Nevertheless, although it does not appear in the Executive Summary and Conclusions, it is important to underscore that the full report does briefly review two topics of great interest and importance: road design and vulnerable road users. I would like to further discuss these issues and their importance to speeding and to preventing speeding-related deaths and injuries.

Road design is integral to the analysis of speeding and, while the report focuses on countermeasures that staff considered less widely accepted, it is important to note that road design to address speed-related crashes is not yet widely implemented, but should be. Some states (and other types of jurisdictions such as cities and counties) are already addressing speed-related crashes using road design, by using FARS data related to infrastructure and other data-driven measures.

Other states can learn from them. Some states, as I have seen first-hand, are already including speed as an emphasis area in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP). Some jurisdictions are using AASHTO’s Green Book and other design manuals and some jurisdictions are using road design features that enhance compliance for lower speed limits rather than simply lowering speed limits. Federal government agencies can, and should, be given the ability to foster these types of best practices in which jurisdictions take a systemic approach to identifying locations prone to speeding-related crashes and correcting them in the manner they have determined is most effective using data.

Although this report focuses on passenger vehicles, current discussions about speeding must necessarily include people who walk and bike. The safe systems approach discussed in the report incorporates the needs of all road users, especially vulnerable ones. It is widely acknowledged among road safety professionals that interventions that prevent the deaths of the most vulnerable road users will benefit all road users. Some states and other jurisdictions have acknowledged this safety tenet by including pedestrians and cyclists in their SHSPs. Other jurisdictions should be encouraged to follow these best practice examples.

Overall, it is important to recognize that states, cities, and other jurisdictions already may be addressing speed in effective ways – even if we were not able to include it in our report due to the focus. Automated speed enforcement (ASE) was covered thoroughly in the report and three different recommendations were made to states, depending on the status of their laws related to ASE. I proposed, and still strongly believe, that combining the 3 recommendations into one recommendation to all 50 states and D.C. to examine current laws and implement ASE “to the fullest extent possible” would allow each state to advance ASE and safety most effectively, rather than focusing simply on reducing the prohibitions to ASE. By allowing states the freedom to be creative in implementing an effective technology (such as ASE), we are giving states a proven 918
NTSB Safety Study
60 safety tool rather than prescriptively telling states how to use it. States (and other jurisdictions) know their communities best and our safety recommendations should give them the information and the freedom to advance safety in the manner they choose. 919
NTSB Safety Study
61 Appendixes
Appendix A: Speeding-Related National Transportation Safety Board Investigations
Table A-1 lists 49 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) major highway investigations in which speeding or speed was found to be a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor.

Table A-1. Speeding-related NTSB major highway investigations Date Location Description Report
Number
6/25/2015 Chattanooga, TN Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 75 HAR-16/01 6/7/2014 Cranbury, NJ Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95 HAR-15/02 2/16/2012 Chesterfield, NJ School Bus and Truck Collision at Intersection HAR-13/01 3/12/2011 New York City, NY Motorcoach Run-Off-the-Road and Collision with Vertical Highway Signpost, Interstate 95 Southbound HAR-12/01 1/6/2008 Mexican Hat, UT Motorcoach Rollover HAR-09/01
10/1/2003 Hampshire, IL Multivehicle Collision on Interstate 90, HampshireMarengo Toll Plaza HAR-06/03 5/1/2003 Linden, NJ Passenger Vehicle Median Crossover and Head-On with Another Passenger Vehicle HAR-06/02
2/14/2003 Hewitt, TX Motorcoach Median Crossover and Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle HAR-05/02
1/17/2003 Fairfield, CT Multiple Vehicle Collision on Interstate 95 HAR-05/03 2/1/2002 Largo, MD Ford Explorer Sport Collision with Ford Windstar Minivan and Jeep Grand Cherokee on Interstate 95/495 HAR-03/02 10/13/2001 Omaha, NE School Bus Run-Off-Bridge Accident HAR-04/01 2/12/1997 Slinger, WI Multiple Vehicle Crossover Accident HAR-98/01 1/9/1995 Menifee, AR Multiple Vehicle Collision with Fire During Fog near Milepost 118 on Interstate 40 HAR-95/03
12/11/1990 Calhoun, TN Multiple-Vehicle Collisions and Fire During Limited Visibility on Interstate 75 HAR-92/02
7/26/1990 Sutton, WV Multiple Vehicle Collision and Fire in a Work Zone on Interstate Highway 79 HAR-91/01
11/19/1988 Nashville, TN Greyhound Lines, Inc., Intercity Bus Loss of Control and Overturn Interstate Highway 95 HAR-89/03
5/4/1987 Beaumont, TX Tractor-Semitrailer/Intercity Bus Head-On Collision, Interstate 10 HAR-88/01
9/29/1986 Carney’s Point, NJ Charter Bus/Tractor-Semitrailer Rear-End Collision HAR-87/03 7/14/1986 Brinkley, AR Trailways Lines, Inc., Intercity Bus Collision with Rising Fast Trucking Company, Inc., Interstate Highway 40 HAR-87/05 5/30/1986 Walker, CA Intercity Tour Bus Loss of Control and Rollover Into the West Walker River HAR-87/04
920
NTSB Safety Study
62 Date Location Description Report
Number
11/11/1985 St. Louis County, MO
Schoolbus Loss of Control and Collision with Guard Rail and Sign Pillar, US Highway 70 near Lucas and Hunt
Road
HAR-87/02
8/25/1985 Frederick, MD Intercity Bus Loss of Control and Collision with Bridge Rail on Interstate 70 HAR-87/01
6/21/1985 Van Buren, AR Tractor-Semitrailer/Station Wagon Runaway, Collision, and Fire HAR-86/03
11/30/1983 Livingston, TX Trailways Lines, Inc., Bus/E.A. Holder, Inc., Truck, Rear End Collision and Bus Run-Off-Bridge, US Route 59 HAR-84/04 4/5/1983 Holmesville, NY
Valley Supply Co. Truck Towing Farm Plow/Anchor
Motor Freight Inc. Car Carrier Truck/New York State
Association for Retarded Children Bus Collision and
Fire, State Route 8
HAR-84/01
3/25/1983 Newport, AR Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run-Off-Road and Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18 HAR-83/03 2/28/1983 Ocala, FL Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fires Under Limited Visibility Conditions, Interstate Route 75 HAR-83/04
10/8/1982 Lemoore, CA J.C. Sales, Inc., Tractor-Semi-Trailer/Calvary Baptist Church Van Collision, State Route 198 at 19th Avenue HAR-83/02 4/7/1982 Oakland, CA Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fire, Caldecott Tunnel HAR-83/01 11/14/1981 Canon City, UT
Pacific Intermountain Express Tractor Cargo Tank
Semitrailer Eagle/F.B. Truck Lines, Inc., Tractor Lowboy Semitrailer Collision and Fire, US Route 50
HAR-82/03
2/18/1981 Frostburg, MD Direct Transit Lines, Inc., Tractor-Semitrailer/Multiple Vehicle Collision and Fire, US Route 40 HAR-81/03
11/10/1980 San Bernardino, CA Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fire in Fog, Interstate 50 HAR-81/02 2/23/1980 Perry, OK Head-On Collision of Auto and Pickup Truck, US Route 64 HAR-80/04
9/22/1979 Indiana, PA Two-Vehicle Collision and Fire, US Route 422 HAR-80/03 8/22/1979 Laramie, WY Multiple Vehicle Collision in a Construction Zone, US Interstate 80 HAR-80/01
6/8/1979 New York, NY Multiple Vehicle Median Barrier Crossover and Collision, Grand Central Parkway HAR-79/08
4/23/1979 Crofton, MD Ford Courier Pickup Truck/Fixed Object Collision, Patuxent Road HAR-79/06
11/11/1978 Alhambra, CA Stationwagon Penetration of Bridgerail, I-10 HAR-79/05 8/22/1978 Littleton, NH Ross Ambulance Service, Ambulance Overturn, State Route 116 HAR-79/04
9/25/1977 St. Louis, MO
Gateway Transportation Company, Inc., TractorSemitrailer Penetration of Median Barrier and Collision with Automobile, I-70
HAR-79/03
9/24/1977 Beattyville, KY Usher Transport, Inc., Tractor-Cargo-Tank-Semitrailer Overturn and Fire, State Route 11 HAR-78/04
5/11/1976 Houston, TX
Transport Company of Texas, Tractor Semitrailer (Tank)
Collision with Bridge Column and Sudden Dispersal of
Anhydrous Ammonia Cargo
HAR-77/01
921
NTSB Safety Study
63 Date Location Description Report
Number
12/4/1975 Seattle, WA Union Oil Company of California, Tank Truck and Full Trailer Overturn and Fire HAR-76/07
6/6/1975 Hamilton, GA Collision of Hubert Roten Trucking Company Truck and Skinner Corporation Bus HAR-76/05
2/28/1975 Corona, CA Multiple Vehicle Collisions in Fog HAR-75/07 7/11/1970 San Francisco, CA Two Car Collision, Southern Approach to Golden Gate Bridge HAR-71/05
11/29/1969 New Jersey Turnpike, NJ Multiple Vehicle Collisions Under Fog Conditions, Followed by Fires HAR-71/03
11/24/1969 Petersburg, IN Interstate Bus/Automobile Collision and Rollover on Indiana Route 57 HAR-71/04
8/12/1967 Joliet, IL Motor Carrier Highway Accident HAR-1967 922
NTSB Safety Study
64 Appendix B: Road Function Classifications
This appendix summarizes the Federal Highway Administration guidance on road function classification for arterial, collector, and local roads, and provides the corresponding attributes of the “road_fnc” data element in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database (FHWA 2013; NHTSA 2015a).

Arterials
Arterials are roadways that provide a high level of mobility, primarily serve long-distance travel, are typically designed as either access-controlled or partially access-controlled, and have higher posted speed limits than most other types of roads. Principal arterials and minor arterials are subcategories of arterials.

Principal arterials include interstates (which are access-controlled), other freeways and expressways (which look very similar to interstates and are also access-controlled), and other principal arterials (which are unlike interstates and other freeways and expressways in that abutting land uses can be served directly). Table B-1 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of principal arterials by land use.

Table B-1. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for principal arterials, by land use Principal Arterials
Land Use
Urban Rural
Roadway
Characteristics
• Serve major activity centers, highest
traffic volume corridors and longest trip
demands
• Carry high proportion of total urban travel
on minimum of mileage
• Interconnect and provide continuity for
major rural corridors to accommodate
trips entering and leaving urban area and
movements through the urban area
• Serve demand for intra-area travel
between the central business district and
outlying residential areas
• Serve corridor movements having trip
length and travel density characteristics
indicative of substantial statewide or
interstate travel
• Connect all or nearly all urbanized areas
and a large majority of urban clusters with
25,000 and over population
• Provide an integrated network of
continuous routes without stub
connections (that is, dead ends)
FARS “road_fnc”
Attributes
• Interstates (11)
• Other freeways and expressways (12)
• Other principal arterials (13)
• Interstates (1)
• Other principal arterials (2)
923
NTSB Safety Study
65 Minor arterials provide service for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their principal arterial counterparts, and offer connectivity to the principal arterial system. Table B-2 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of minor arterials by land use.

Table B-2. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for minor arterials, by land use Minor Arterials
Land Use
Urban Rural
Roadway
Characteristics
• Interconnect and augment the
higher-level arterials
• Serve trips of moderate length at a
somewhat lower level of travel mobility
than principal arterials
• Distribute traffic to smaller geographic
areas than those served by higher-level
arterials
• Provide more land access than principal
arterials without penetrating identifiable
neighborhoods
• Provide urban connections for rural
collectors
• Link cities and larger towns (and other
major destinations such as resorts
capable of attracting travel over long
distances) and form an integrated
network providing interstate and
inter-county service
• Be spaced at intervals, consistent with
population density, so that all developed
areas within the state are within a
reasonable distance of an arterial
roadway
• Provide service to corridors with trip
lengths and travel density greater than
those served by rural collectors and local
roads and with relatively high travel
speeds and minimum interference to
through movement
FARS “road_fnc”
Attributes
• Minor arterial (14) • Minor arterial (3)
924
NTSB Safety Study
66 Collectors
Collectors provide a balanced blend of mobility and access; collect traffic from local roads; connect traffic to arterial roadways; and provide traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial, industrial, and civic districts. Major collectors and minor collectors are subcategories of collectors. Table B-3 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for major collectors by land use. Table B-4 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for minor collectors by land use.

Table B-3. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for major collectors, by land use Major Collectors
Land Use
Urban Rural
Roadway
Characteristics
• Serve both land access and traffic
circulation in higher density residential,
and commercial/industrial areas
• Penetrate residential neighborhoods,
often for significant distances
• Distribute and channel trips between local
roads and arterials, usually over a
distance of greater than three-quarters of
a mile
• Operating characteristics include higher
speeds and more signalized intersections
• Provide service to any county seat not on
an arterial route, to the larger towns not
directly served by the higher systems and
to other traffic generators of equivalent
intra-county importance such as
consolidated schools, shipping points,
county parks, and important mining and
agricultural areas
• Link these places with nearby larger
towns and cities or with arterial routes
• Serve the most important intra-county
travel corridors
FARS “road_fnc”
Attributes
• Collector (15) • Major collector (4)
Table B-4. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for minor collectors, by land use Minor Collectors
Land Use
Urban Rural
Roadway
Characteristics
• Serve both land access and traffic
circulation in lower density residential and
commercial/industrial areas
• Penetrate residential neighborhoods,
often only for a short distance
• Distribute and channel trips between local
roads and arterials, usually over a
distance of less than three-quarters of a
mile
• Operating characteristics include lower
speeds and fewer signalized intersections
• Be spaced at intervals, consistent with
population density, to collect traffic from
local roads and bring all developed areas
within reasonable distance of a collector
• Provide service to smaller communities
not served by a higher-class facility
• Link locally important traffic generators
with their rural hinterlands
FARS “road_fnc”
Attributes
• Collector (15) • Minor collector (5)
925
NTSB Safety Study
67 Locals
Local roadways provide a high level of accessibility and direct access to multiple properties. They are lined with intersecting access points and constitute the mileage not classified as part of the arterial or collector systems. Speed limits on local roads are kept low to promote safe traffic operations. Table B-5 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of locals, by land use.

Table B-5. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of locals, by land use Locals
Land Use
Urban Rural
Roadway
Characteristics
• Provide direct access to adjacent land
• Provide access to higher systems
• Carry no through traffic movement
• Serve primarily to provide access to
adjacent land
• Provide service to travel over short
distances as compared to higher
classification categories
FARS “road_fnc”
Attributes
• Local road and street (16) • Local road and street (6) 926
NTSB Safety Study
68 Appendix C: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Speed Limit Guidance
This appendix includes Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which serves as the standard for setting speed limits in speed zones (FHWA 2012a). 927
NTSB Safety Study
69 928
NTSB Safety Study
70 929
NTSB Safety Study
71 Appendix D: Speeding Categories
This appendix lists the attributes of the “speeding related” data element in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline and the corresponding attributes of the “speedrel” data element in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database. The MMUCC Guideline and FARS definitions for speeding are both based on the determination of officers, with the MMUCC Guideline stating that these categories are an “indication of whether the investigating officer suspects that the driver involved in the crash was speeding based on verbal or physical evidence and not on speculation alone,” and FARS documentation stating that each category “records whether the driver’s speed was related to the crash as indicated by law enforcement” (GHSA and NHTSA 2012; NHTSA 2015a). See table D-1.

Table D-1. Speeding categories in MMUCC Guideline and FARS database Speeding
Category
MMUCC Guideline “speeding related” Data Element FARS “speedrel” Data Element Attribute Definition Attribute
Not Speeding No (none) No
Exceeding
Speed Limit
Exceeded
Speed Limit
When a motor vehicle is traveling
above the posted/statutory speed limit
on certain designated roadways or by
certain types of vehicles (for example,
for trucks, buses, motorcycles, on
bridge, at night, in school zone, and so
on)
Yes, Exceeded Speed Limit
Too Fast for
Conditions
Too Fast for
Conditions
Traveling at a speed that was unsafe
for the road, weather, traffic or other
environmental conditions at the time
Yes, Too Fast for Conditions
Racing Racing
When two or more motor vehicles are
engaged in a speed-related competition
on the trafficway
Yes, Racing
Speeding of
Unspecific
Type
n/a n/a Yes, Specifics Unknown
No Driver
Information n/a n/a No Driver Present / Unknown if Driver Present Unknown if
Speeding Unknown (none) Unknown
930
NTSB Safety Study
72 Appendix E: State Laws Regarding Automated Speed Enforcement Table E-1 summarizes state laws regarding automated speed enforcement (ASE) and notes whether any ASE programs are active in each state (IIHS 2016a). The District of Columbia allows ASE throughout its jurisdiction and operates an ASE program.

Table E-1. ASE state laws and active programs, April 2017 State ASE State Law Active ASE
Programs Notes
Alabama No state law Yes
Alaska No state law No
Arizona Allowed with
restrictions Yes Prohibited on state highways; contractors must be licensed as private investigators, Arkansas Allowed with
restrictions No Officer must be present and citation issued at time of violation California No state law No
Colorado Allowed with
restrictions Yes
Restricted to construction and school zones, residential areas, and streets that border a municipal park; officer or government employee must be present at time of violation.

Connecticut No state law No
Delaware No state law No
Florida No state law No
Georgia No state law No
Hawaii No state law No
Idaho No state law No
Illinois Allowed with
restrictions Yes
Restricted to construction zones; allowed in school zones and park districts in municipalities with a population of 1,000,000 or more
Indiana No state law No
Iowa No state law Yes
Kansas No state law No
Kentucky No state law No
Louisiana Allowed with
restrictions Yes Restricted to specified jurisdictions and interstate work zones Maine Prohibited No
Maryland Allowed with
restrictions Yes
Restricted to school zones, work zones on expressways or controlled access highways, and Montgomery County
residential areas
Massachusetts No state law No
Michigan No state law No
Minnesota No state law No
Mississippi Prohibited No
Missouri No state law Yes
931
NTSB Safety Study
73 State ASE State Law Active ASE
Programs Notes
Montana No state law No
Nebraska No state law No
Nevada Allowed with
restrictions No Equipment must be hand-held by officer or installed within law enforcement vehicle or facility New Hampshire Prohibited No
New Jersey Prohibited No
New Mexico No state law Yes
New York Allowed with
restrictions Yes Restricted to specified jurisdictions
North Carolina No state law No
North Dakota No state law No
Ohio Allowed with
restrictions Yes Officer must be present
Oklahoma No state law No
Oregon Allowed with
restrictions Yes
Restricted to specified jurisdictions, state highway
construction zones, and Portland urban high crash
corridors
Pennsylvania No state law No
Rhode Island Allowed with
restrictions No Restricted to school zones
South Carolina Allowed with
restrictions No Restricted to use during declared states of emergency South Dakota No state law No
Tennessee Allowed with
restrictions Yes Restricted to school zones and s-curves inhibiting driver vision Texas Prohibited No
Utah Allowed with
restrictions No Restricted to school zones with speed limit of 30 mph or lower; officer must be present Vermont No state law No
Virginia No state law No
Washington Allowed with
restrictions Yes
Restricted to school zones and a single camera for any city west of the Cascade mountains with a population of more than 195,000 located in a county with a population of fewer than 1,500,000
West Virginia Prohibited No
Wisconsin Prohibited No
Wyoming No state law No
932
NTSB Safety Study
74 References
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2016. 2015 Traffic Safety Culture Index. Washington, DC:

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Aarts, Letty, and Ingrid van Schagen. 2006. “Driving Speed and the Risk of Road Crashes: A Review.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 38 (2): 215–224.

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2004. “Proposed Policy Resolution PPR-04SM-4: Use of Automated Traffic Law Enforcement to Improve Safety.”
———. 2006. “Policy Resolution 2006-02: Automated Traffic Enforcement,” http://scohts.transportation.org/Pages/Resolutions.aspx. ———. 2010. Highway Safety Manual, First Edition. Washington, DC: AASHTO. ———. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC: AASHTO.

Abdel-Aty, Mohamed A., and A. E. Radwan. 2000. “Modeling Traffic Accident Occurrence and Involvement.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 32 (5): 633–642.

Anastasopoulos, Panagiotis Ch., and Fred L. Mannering. 2009. “A Note on Modeling Vehicle Accident Frequencies with Random-Parameters Count Models.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 41 (1): 153–159.

Apple. 2017. “CarPlay,” http://www.apple.com/ios/carplay.

Audi. 2017. Owner’s Manual: 2018 A4. Ingolstadt, Germany: Audi AG.

Baruya, A. 1998. “Speed-Accident Relationships on European Roads.” Paper presented at 9th International Conference Road Safety in Europe, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, September 21-23.

Baruya, A., and D. J. Finch. 1994. “Investigation of Traffic Speeds and Accidents on Urban Roads.” In Proceedings of Seminar J Held at the 22nd PTRC European Transport Forum, 219–230. London: PTRC Education and Research Services Limited.

Blincoe, Lawrence, Ted R. Miller, Eduard Zaloshnja, and Bruce A. Lawrence. 2015. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised). DOT HS 812 013. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Blomberg, Richard D. and Arlene M. Cleven. 2006. Pilot Test of Heed The Speed, a Program to Reduce Speeds in Residential Neighborhoods. DOT HS 810 648. Washington, DC:

US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.
933
NTSB Safety Study
75 Blomberg, Richard D., Ron Van Houten, F. Dennis Thomas, Kristopher T. Korbelak, and Bryan W. Hilton. 2015. Automated Feedback to Foster Safe Driving in Young Drivers, Phase 2.

DOT HS 812 230. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Britten, Nicky. 2006. “Qualitative Interviews.” In Qualitative Research in Health Care, edited by Catherine Pope and Nicholas Mays, 12–20. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bryant, Kevin M., Gregory M. Collins, and Michael D. White. 2015. Shawnee, Kansas, Smart Policing Initiative: Reducing Crime and Automobile Collisions through Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS).

California Department of Transportation. 2014. California Manual for Setting Speed Limits.

Cambridge Systematics. 2010. Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference.

FHWA-HEP-10-001. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Casey, Steven M., and Adrian K. Lund. 1992. “Changes in Speed and Speed Adaptation Following Increase in National Maximum Speed Limit.” Journal of Safety Research 23 (3): 135–146.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2015a. “Intervention Fact Sheets: Automated Speed-Camera Enforcement,” http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/ factsheet/speed.html.
———. 2015b. “Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS): Project Report and User Guide,” http://www.cdc.gov/ motorvehiclesafety/calculator/doc/index.html.

Chang, Li-Yen. 2005. “Analysis of Freeway Accident Frequencies: Negative Binomial Regression Versus Artificial Neural Network.” Safety Science 43 (8): 541–557.

Chevrolet. 2016. “Teen Driver Technology: New Driver Safety,” http://www.chevrolet.com/teendriver-technology.html.

Cicchino, Jessica B., Joann K. Wells, and Anne T. McCartt. 2014. “Survey About Pedestrian Safety and Attitudes Toward Automated Traffic Enforcement in Washington, DC.” Traffic Injury Prevention 15 (4): 414–423.

Cirillo, Julie A. 1968. “Interstate System Accident Research Study II, Interim Report II.” Public Roads 35 (3): 71–75.

Council, Forrest M., Martine Reurings, Raghavan Srinivasan, Scott Masten, and Daniel Carter. 2010. Development of a Speeding-Related Crash Typology. FHWA-HRT-10-024.

Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

D’Elia, Angelo, Stuart Newstead, and Max Cameron. 2007. Overall Impact During 2001-2004 of Victorian Speed-Related Package. Report No. 267. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
934
NTSB Safety Study
76 De Leonardis, D., R. Huey, and E. Robinson. 2014. Investigation of the Use and Feasibility of Speed Warning Systems. DOT HS 811 996. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

De Pauw, Ellen, Stijn Daniels, Melissa Thierie, and Tom Brijs. 2014. “Safety Effects of Reducing the Speed Limit from 90 km/h to 70 km/h.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 62: 426–431.

Decina, Lawrence E., Libby Thomas, Raghavan Srinivasan, and Loren Staplin. 2007. Automated Enforcement: A Compendium of Worldwide Evaluations of Results. DOT HS 810 763.

Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Dingus, Thomas A., F. Guo, S. Lee, J.F. Antin, M. Perez, M. Buchanan-King, and J. Hankey. 2016. Driver Crash Risk Factors and Prevalence Evaluation Using Naturalistic Driving Data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (10): 2636-2641.

Donnell, Eric T., Scott C. Hines, Kevin M. Mahoney, Richard J. Porter, and Hugh McGee. 2009.

Speed Concepts: Informational Guide. FHWA-SA-10-001. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

DOT (US Department of Transportation). 2005. Speed Management Strategic Initiative. DOT HS 809 924. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. ———. 2011. “Speed Management Team Charter,” http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ spd_mgt_charter.cfm.
———. 2014. Speed Management Program Plan. DOT HS 812 028. Washington, DC:

US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Elvik, Rune, Peter Christensen, and Astrid Amundsen. 2004. Speed and Road Accidents: An Evaluation of the Power Model. TØI report 740/2004. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics.

ETSC (European Transport Safety Council). 1995. Reducing Traffic Injuries Resulting From Excess and Inappropriate Speed. Brussels: ETSC.

Euro NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme). 2015. Assessment Protocol - Safety Assist: Version 7.0. Brussels: Euro NCAP.

European Commission. 2015. “Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA),” http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/new_technologies_n ew_opportunities/intelligent_speed_adaptation_isa_en.htm.

Farmer, Charles M. 2016. A Point-by-Point Response to “Speed or Greed: Does Automated Traffic Enforcement Improve Safety or Generate Revenue?” Arlington, VA: IIHS. ———. 2017. “Automated Traffic Enforcement: Responding to the Critics.” Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 5: 1–7.
935
NTSB Safety Study
77 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2000. FHWA Safety: Road Function Classifications.

Washington, DC: FHWA.
———. 2012a. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways: 2009 Edition Including Revision 1 dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.
———. 2012b. User Guide for USLIMITS. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.
———. 2013. Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures.

FHWA-PL-13-026. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. ———. 2016. Road Diet: Policies. FHWA-SA-16-074. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.
———. 2017. “USLIMITS2 Frequently Asked Questions,” https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/ documents/FAQ.htm.

FHWA and NHTSA. 2008. Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines. DOT HS 810 916. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA and NHTSA.

Fildes, B. N., G. Rumbold, and A. Leening. 1991. Speed Behaviour and Drivers’ Attitude to Speeding. Report No. 16. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Fildes, B. N. and Stephen Lee. 1993. The Speed Review: Road Environment, Behaviour, Speed Limits, Enforcement and Crashes. Report No. CR 127, Clayton, Victoria: Monash University Accident Research Center.

Fitzpatrick, Kay, Joseph D. Blaschke, C. Brian Shamburger, Raymond A. Krammes, and Daniel B. Fambro. 1995. Compatibility of Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed.

FHWA/TX-95/1465-2F. College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute.

Forbes, Gerald R., Teresa Gardner, Hugh McGee, and Raghavan Srinivasan. 2012. Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report. FHWA-SA-12-004.

Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Ford Motor Company. 2015. 2015 Ford Galaxy / S-Max Owner’s Manual. Part Number:

CG3646en 01/2015 20150223151541. Brentwood, Essex, United Kingdom. ———. 2016. “MyKey,” http://owner.ford.com/how-tos/vehicle-features/locks-and-security/ mykey.html.

Garber, Nicholas J. and Ravi Gadirau. 1988. Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents.

Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
936
NTSB Safety Study
78 Garber, Nicholas J. and Ravi Gadirau. 1989. Factors Affecting Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents. Transportation Research Record (1213): 64-71.

GHSA (Governors Highway Safety Association). 2005. National Forum on Speeding: Strategies for Reducing Speeding-Related Fatalities & Injuries, Summary Report. Washington, DC:

GHSA.
———. 2012. Survey of the States: Speeding and Aggressive Driving. Washington, DC: GHSA. ———. 2013. 2014-2015 Policies and Priorities. Washington, DC: GHSA. ———. 2016. “GHSA Issues: Speed and Red Light Cameras,” http://www.ghsa.org/ html/issues/auto_enforce.html.

GHSA and NHTSA. 2012. MMUCC Guideline: Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, Fourth Edition. DOT HS 811 631. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Goodwin, Arthur, Libby Thomas, Bevan Kirley, William Hall, Natalie O’Brien, and Kate Hill. 2015. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, Eighth Edition. DOT HS 812 202. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Google. 2017. “Android Auto,” http://www.android.com/auto.

Hall, Howard, and Emily Puls. 2010. “Implementing DDACTS in Baltimore County: Using Geographic Incident Patterns to Deploy Enforcement.” Geography and Public Safety 2 (3):
5–7.

Hardy, Earl. 2010. “Data-Driven Policing: How Geographic Analysis Can Reduce Social Harm.” Geography and Public Safety 2 (3): 1–2.

HERE. 2016. “The Official Honda Map Update Site,” https://hondanavi.navigation.com/ home/en_US/HondaNA/USD.

Hinch, Mary, Mark Solomon, and Julie Tison. 2014. The Click It or Ticket Evaluation, 2012. DOT HS 811 989. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Høye, Alena. 2014. “Speed Cameras, Section Control, and Kangaroo Jumps—A Meta-Analysis.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 73: 200–208.

Hu, Wen. 2016. Raising the Speed Limit from 75 to 80 mph on Utah Rural Interstates: Effects on Vehicle Speeds and Speed Variance. Arlington, VA: IIHS.

Hu, Wen, and Anne T. McCartt. 2016. “Effects of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland, on Vehicle Speeds, Public Opinion, and Crashes.” Traffic Injury Prevention 17: 53–58.
937
NTSB Safety Study
79 IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police). 2003. Traffic Safety Strategies for Law Enforcement: A Planning Guide for Law Enforcement Executives, Administrators and Managers. Alexandria, VA: IACP Highway Safety Committee. ———. 2004. Highway Safety Desk Book. Alexandria, VA: IACP. ———. 2007. “Resolution S&P.033.a07: Automated Speed Enforcement,” http://www.iacp.org/ Resolutions-Search.

IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). 2013. “Subaru, Volvo Dealers Report Sales Boost from Good Crash Test Ratings.” Status Report 48 (7).
———. 2016a. “Automated Enforcement Laws with Map,” http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/ laws/automated_enforcement.
———. 2016b. “Safety Ratings,” http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings. ———. 2017. “Speed Limit Laws,” http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits.

Islam, M. T., Karim El-Basyouny, and Shewkar E. Ibrahim. 2014. “The Impact of Lowered Residential Speed Limits on Vehicle Speed Behavior.” Safety Science 62: 483–494.

ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2001. Survey of Speed Zoning Practices: An Informational Report. Washington, DC: ITE.
———. 2010. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, 2nd edition, Washington, DC: ITE. ———. 2016. Traffic Engineering Handbook, 7th edition, Washington, DC: ITE. ———. 2017. “Vision Zero,” http://www.ite.org/visionzero.

ITF (International Transport Forum). 2016. Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Joksch, Hans C. 1993. “Velocity Change and Fatality Risk in a Crash-A Rule of Thumb.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 25 (1): 103–104.

Jurewicz, Chris, Cara Phillips, Michael Tziotis, and Blair Turner. 2014. Model National Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits at High-risk Locations. Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

Kerrigan, Heather. 2011. “Data-Driven Policing,” http://www.governing.com/topics/publicjustice-safety/Data-driven-Policing.html.

Kloeden, C. N., A. J. McLean, and G. Glonek. 2002. Reanalysis of Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement in Adelaide South Australia. CR 207. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Kloeden, C. N. and J. E. Woolley. 2012. Vehicle Speeds in South Australia 2010. CASR097.

Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide.
938
NTSB Safety Study
80 Kockelman, Kara M., and Jianming Ma. 2007. “Freeway Speeds and Speed Variations Preceding Crashes, Within and Across Lanes.” Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 46 (1):
43–61.

Krammes, Raymond A., Kay Fitzpatrick, Joseph D. Blaschke, and Daniel B. Fambro. 1996.

Understanding Design, Operating, and Posted Speed. 1465-1. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute.

Lahrmann, Harry, Bo Brassøe, Jonas W. Johansen, and Jens C. O. Madsen. 2016. “Safety Impact of Average Speed Control in the UK.” Journal of Transportation Technologies 6 (5):
312-326.

Lave, Charles A. 1985. “Speeding, Coordination, and the 55 mph Limit.” The American Economic Review 75 (5): 1159–1164.

Matthews, Michael L. 1978. “A Field Study of the Effects of Drivers’ Adaptation to Automobile Velocity.” Human Factors 20 (6): 709–716.

Miller, Richard J., J. Scott Osberg, Richard Retting, McKenzie Ballou, and Randolph Atkins. 2016. System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation. DOT HS 812 257. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Milton, John, and Fred Mannering. 1998. “The Relationship Among Highway Geometrics, Traffic-Related Elements and Motor-Vehicle Accident Frequencies.” Transportation 25 (4): 395–413.

Mobileye. 2017. “Mobileye Features,” http://www.mobileye.com/en-us/technology/features/.

Moon, Jae-Pil, and Joseph Hummer. 2010. “Speed Enforcement Cameras in Charlotte, North Carolina: Estimation of Longer-Term Safety Effects.” Transportation Research Record 2182: 31–39.

Munnich, Lee W., and Joseph D. Loveland. 2011. “Do Americans Oppose Controversial Evidence-Based Road Safety Policies?” Transportation Research Record 2213: 9–12.

NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). 2016. “NACTO Policy 2016:

Creating Safe, Sustainable, Multi-Modal Urban Transportation,” http://nacto.org/policy2016/. ———. 2017. “Urban Street Design Guide: Speed Reduction Mechanisms,” https://nacto.org/ publication/urban-street-design-guide/design-controls/design-speed/speed-reductionmechanisms/.

National Institute of Justice. 2014. “Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety,” https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/operations/traffic/Pages/ddacts.aspx. 939
NTSB Safety Study
81 National Research Council. 1998. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. TRB Special Report 254. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

National Safety Council. 2017. “Road to Zero: New Partnership to End Traffic Fatalities Within 30 Years,” http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/The-Road-to-Zero.aspx.

NCSA (National Center for Statistics and Analysis). 2015. Traffic Safety Facts, 2014 Data:

Alcohol-Impaired Driving. DOT HS 812 231. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.
———. 2016a. Traffic Safety Facts, 2014 Data: Speeding. DOT HS 812 265. Washington, DC:

US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.
———. 2016b. Traffic Safety Facts, 2015 Data: Alcohol-Impaired Driving. DOT HS 812 350.

Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. ———. 2017. Traffic Safety Facts, 2015 Data: Speeding. DOT HS 812 409. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Neuner, Michelle, Jennifer Atkinson, Brian Chandler, Shauna Hallmark, Robert Milstead, and Richard Retting. 2016. Integrating Speed Management within Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicyclist Focus Areas. FHWA-SA-16-017. McLean, Virginia: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2013. Summary of State Speed Laws:

Twelfth Edition, Current as of October 8, 2012. DOT HS 811 769. Washington, DC:

US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.
———. 2014. Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS): Operational Guide. DOT HS 811 185. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. ———. 2015a. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): Analytical User’s Manual 1975-2014.

DOT HS 812 214. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. ———. 2015b. National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES):

Analytical User’s Manual 1988-2014. DOT HS 812 215. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.
———. 2016a. 2014 FARS/NASS GES Coding and Validation Manual. DOT HS 812 216.

Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. ———. 2016b. “Safercar,” https://www.safercar.gov/.
———. 2016c. “Traffic Safety Marketing,” http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/. 940
NTSB Safety Study
82 ———. 2016d. “US DOT, National Safety Council Launch ‘Road to Zero’ Coalition to End Roadway Fatalities,” https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-national-safetycouncil-launch-road-zero-coalition-end-roadway-fatalities.

NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 1967. Motor Carrier Highway Accident, Joliet, Illinois, August 12, 1967. Washington, DC: NTSB.
———. 2005a. Motorcoach Median Crossover and Collision With Sport Utility Vehicle, Hewitt, Texas, February 14, 2003. HAR-05/02. Washington, DC: NTSB. ———. 2005b. Rear-End, Chain-Reaction Collisions at US Border Patrol Checkpoint, Interstate Highway 87, February 22 and September 19, 2004. HAB-05/03. Washington, DC: NTSB. ———. 2006. Passenger Vehicle Median Crossover and Head-On Collision With Another Passenger Vehicle, Linden, New Jersey, May 1, 2003. HAR-06/02. Washington, DC:

NTSB.
———. 2012. Motorcoach Run Off-the-Road and Collision with Vertical Signpost, Interstate 95 Southbound, New York City, New York, March 12, 2011. HAR-12/01. Washington, DC:

NTSB.
———. 2015. Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95, Cranbury, New Jersey, June 7, 2014. HAR-15/02. Washington, DC: NTSB.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. Towards Zero:

Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach. Paris.

Parker. 1985. Synthesis of Speed Zoning Practices. FHWA-RD-85-096. Washington, DC:

US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Pei, Xin, S. C. Wong, and N. N. Sze. 2012. “The Roles of Exposure and Speed in Road Safety Analysis.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 48: 464–471.

Perry, Walter L., Brian McInnis, Carter C. Price, Susan C. Smith, and John S. Hollywood. 2013.

Predictive Policing: The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations.

RAND Corporation.

Phillips, Ross O., Pål Ulleberg, and Truls Vaa. 2011. “Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Road Safety Campaigns on Accidents.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 43 (3): 1204–1218.

Pilkington, Paul, and Sanjay Kinra. 2005. “Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in Preventing Road Traffic Collisions and Related Casualties: Systematic Review.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 330 (7487): 331–334.

Quddus, Mohammed. 2013. “Exploring the Relationship Between Average Speed, Speed Variation, and Accident Rates Using Spatial Statistical Models and GIS.” Journal of Transportation Safety & Security 5 (1): 27–45.
941
NTSB Safety Study
83 Regan, Michael A., Thomas J. Triggs, Kristie L. Young, Nebojsa Tomasevic, Eve Mitsopoulos, Karen Stephan, and Clae Tingvall. 2006. On-Road Evaluation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation, Following Distance Warning, and Seatbelt Reminder Systems: Final Results of the TAC SafeCar Project. Report No. 253. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Retting, Richard. 2003. “Speed Cameras: Public Perceptions in the US.” Traffic Engineering & Control 44 (3): 100–101.

Retting, Richard A., Charles M. Farmer, and Anne T. McCartt. 2008. Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland. Arlington, VA: IIHS.

Retting, Richard A., Sergey Y. Kyrychenko, and Anne T. McCartt. 2008. “Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement on Loop 101 Freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 40 (4): 1506–1512.

Richards, D. C. 2010. Relationship Between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants. Road Safety Web Publication No. 16. London: Transport Research Laboratory.

Roadway Safety Consortium. 2012. “Automated Speed Enforcement in Work Zones,” http://www.workzonesafety.org/publication/automated-speed-enforcement-in-workzones/.

Schmidt, Frank, and Joseph Tiffin. 1969. “Distortion of Drivers’ Estimates of Automobile Speed as a Function of Speed Adaptation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 53 (6): 536–539.

Schroeder, Paul, Lidia Kostyniuk, and Mary Mack. 2013. 2011 National Survey of Speeding Attitudes and Behaviors. DOT HS 811 865. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Shinar, David. 2017. Traffic Safety and Human Behavior. Second Edition. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Smith, Sarah. 2015. Highway Safety Improvement Program: 2014 National Summary Report.

FHWA-SA-15-048. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Smith, Sarah and Kari Signor. 2016. Highway Safety Improvement Program: 2015 National Summary Report. FHWA-SA-16-063. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Solomon, David. 1964. Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle.

Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads.

Soole, David W., Judy Fleiter, and Barry Watson. 2012. Point-to-Point Speed Enforcement.

AP-R415-12. Sydney: Austroads.
942
NTSB Safety Study
84 Soole, David W., Barry C. Watson, and Judy J. Fleiter. 2013. “Effects of Average Speed Enforcement on Speed Compliance and Crashes: A Review of the Literature.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 54: 46–56.

Speedshield Technologies. 2012. “Speedshield Active ISA,” http://www.speedshield.com/ fileshare/brochures/Automotive_ISA.pdf.

Srinivasan, Raghavan, Martin R. Parker, David Hayeslip, Dwayne Tharpe, and Roy Sumner. 2006.

Expert System for Recommending Speed Limits in Speed Zones: Final Report. NCHRP Project No. 3-67. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

State of Vermont. 2016. “Safe Routes to School,” http://saferoutes.vermont.gov/.

Stuster, Jack. 2004. Aggressive Driving Enforcement: Evaluations of Two Demonstration Programs. DOT HS 809 707. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA.

Stuster, Jack, Zail Coffman, and Davey Warren. 1998. Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management. FHWA-RD-98-154. McLean, Virginia: US Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Taylor, M. C., D. A. Lynam, and A. Baruya. 2000. The Effects of Drivers’ Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents. TRL Report 421. Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom: Transport Research Laboratory.

Tefft, Brian. 2011. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Tesla Motors. 2016. Model S Owner’s Manual: June 9, 2016. Palo Alto, CA: Tesla Motors.

Texas Department of Transportation. 2015. “Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones.” Austin, TX: Texas Department of Transportation.
———. 2017. “Speed Limits - 75 and 80 Mile Per Hour,” http://www.txdot.gov/driver/laws/ speed-limits/approved.html.

The Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee. 2014. Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety.

Town of Paradise Valley. 2017. “Photo Radar,” http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/153/PhotoRadar.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. 2016. 2017 Sienna Owner’s Manual. 0M08007U. Plano, TX:

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TRB (Transportation Research Board). 1998. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. Special Report 254. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
943
NTSB Safety Study
85 Várhelyi, András, Magnus Hjälmdahl, Christer Hydén, and Magda Draskóczy. 2004. “Effects of an Active Accelerator Pedal on Driver Behaviour and Traffic Safety After Long-Term Use in Urban Areas.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 36 (5): 729–737.

Vision Zero Network. 2017. “Vision Zero Cities Map,” http://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/ vision-zero-cities/.

Walter, Louise, Jeremy Broughton, and Jackie Knowles. 2011. “The Effects of Increased Police Enforcement Along a Route in London.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 43 (3):
1219-1227.

Wilson, Cecilia, Charlene Willis, Joan K. Hendrikz, Robyne Le Brocque, and Nicholas Bellamy. 2010. “Speed Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (11).

Wilson, Woodland, Stephen Troutman, Joseph Donohue, and Emily Varga. 2012. “Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS).” Paper presented at NTSB Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Transportation Safety Public Meeting.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Geneva: WHO.
———. 2017. “Fourth UN Global Road Safety Week 2017,” http://www.who.int/ roadsafety/week/2017/en/.

Zaal, Dominic. 1994. Traffic Law Enforcement: A Review of the Literature. Clayton, Australia:

Monash University Accident Research Centre.
944
Resolution 2023-XXX June 20, 2023 Page 1 of 3
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 20, 2023
Opposing Caltrans’ Proposed Speed Limit Increase on Sections of US 50 and US 89

BACKGROUND
A. Per the 2020 California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is required to conduct Engineering and Traffic surveys (E&TS) to post speed limits that are lower than 65 mph or 55 mph on state highways.

B. In late March 2023, Caltrans conducted an E&TS along US 50 from 0.5 miles east of Hopi Avenue in Meyers to the Nevada state line and US 89 from the 50/89 intersection at the “Y” to Cathedral Road.

C. The E&TS recommends increasing the speed limits in the City of South Lake Tahoe along three roadway segments: 1) US 50/89 - North of Kyburz Avenue to North of C Street (Milepost 74.48 - 75.12) from 45 mph to 50 mph; 2) US 50 - North of C Street to North of Blue Lake Ave (Milepost 75.12 - 77.3) from 40 mph to 45 mph; and 3) US 89 - Lake Tahoe Blvd ("Y") to near Pope Beach Entrance (Milepost 8.56 - 11.0 from 35 mph to 45 mph.

D. In reviewing the E&TS and discussion with Caltrans staff, the City’s Public Works Director/Traffic Engineer and Police Chief believe that the E&TS is not consistent with the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits (Revised February 2020), in that the Department of Transportation has not but should consider conditions that are not readily apparent to a reasonable driver, including but not limited to: tourists in the areas who are unfamiliar with the roads; adjacent land and facilities that generate a high concentration of bicyclists and pedestrians, including those from vulnerable groups such as children (South Tahoe Middle School, South Tahoe High School, Boys and Girls Club of Lake Tahoe, and South Lake Tahoe Recreation Center), seniors and persons with disabilities (South Lake Tahoe Senior Center and numerous bus stops along US 50), and the unhoused (three transitional housing shelters at Red Lodge, Bears Den, and El Nido); pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with vehicles, narrow bicycle lanes and paths, the presence of permitted shared mobility devices (electric scooters), black ice, snow conditions, crash rates which are higher than the state average, and other factors.

E. Additionally, increasing the speed limits on the three segments within the City is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Assembly Bill 43, which allows Caltrans and local agencies to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups and the existence of business and residence districts adjacent to state highways in setting speed limits on state highways. AB 43 became effective on January 1, 2022, and established a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour in business districts on state highways with certain exceptions, per California Vehicle Code section 22352. Most if not all of US 50 and 89 within City limits qualify as a “business district” under California Vehicle Code section 945
Resolution 2023-XXX June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 3
235. While the City and Caltrans have not yet taken steps to reduce the speed limit under AB 43, and the City is not authorized to do so until June 30, 2024, City staff believes that portions of US 50 and 89 through South Lake Tahoe should be considered and would qualify for a speed reduction under AB 43.

F. The proposed increase in speed limits based on 85-percentile speed is not consistent with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conclusions that unintended consequences of setting the speed limit based on 85-pecentile speed “include higher operating speeds and new, higher 85th percentile speeds in the speed zones, and an increase in operating speeds outside the speed zones.” In fact, Caltrans increased the speed limit by 5mph on segments of US 50 in 2012 based on an 85th percentile speed, which segments are now proposed to be increased by 5mph again based on the 2023 85th percentile speed, which supports this NTSB conclusion about unintended consequences. Further, the NTSB concludes there is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate for all road types.

G. The proposed increase in speed limits is inconsistent with the City’s forthcoming US 50 corridor planning effort and Caltrans’ forthcoming US 50 Safety Project.

H. On June 20, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on Caltrans’ proposed speed limit increase pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22354.5.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Opposes the Department of Transportation recommendations for increasing the speed limits on segments of US 50, US 89, and US 50/89 in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

2. Requests the Department of Transportation to initiate a corridor study to include traffic calming measures and multi-modal mobility enhancements, in cooperation with City of South Lake Tahoe, for the US 50 and 89 corridors, consistent with the City’s 2023-2028 adopted Strategic Plan, and other goals and vision for the corridor.

3. Directs the City Clerk to remit this Resolution and the Minutes from the associated public hearing to Caltrans District 3 Department of Safety no later than July 7, 2023.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 20, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date: _________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
946
Resolution 2023-XXX June 20, 2023 Page 3 of 3
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
947
Notice of Public Hearing
City of South Lake Tahoe City Council
CalTrans Proposed US 50 Increased Speed Limits
within the City of South Lake Tahoe
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance to Ca.

Veh. Code § 22354.5 the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council will conduct a public hearing on June 20,
2023, at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible,
at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff
Way, South Lake Tahoe, to consider the following
agenda item:

The California Department of Transportation is
proposing an increased speed limit on:

US 50/89 - North of Kyburz Avenue to North of
C Street (Milepost 74.48 - 75.12): Increase speed
limit from 45 mph to 50 mph
US 50 - North of C Street to North of Blue Lake Ave
(Milepost 75.12 - 77.3): Increase speed limit from
40 mph to 45 mph
The Department of Transportation shall take into
consideration the results of the public hearing in
determining whether to increase or decrease the
speed limit. Ca. Veh. Code § 22354.5
Any interested person may appear at the public
hearing and speak in favor or against this item. Written testimony may be delivered at, or prior to, the Public
Hearing addressed to the City Council in care of the
City Clerk to [email protected] or at the
address listed below.

City Council agendas and related staff reports are
available at least 72 hours in advance of regular
meetings on the City Council page of the City’s website www.cityofslt.us or by contacting the City Clerk.

Susan Blankenship
Susan Blankenship
Elected City Clerk
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530) 542-6005
Published: May 26, 2023
948
UPDATED - Notice of Public Hearing
City of South Lake Tahoe City Council
CalTrans Proposed US 50 Increased Speed Limits
within the City of South Lake Tahoe
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance to Ca.

The California Department of Transportation is
proposing an increased speed limit on:
- US 50/89 - North of Kyburz Avenue to North of C
Street (Milepost 74.48 - 75.12): Increase speed
limit from 45 mph to 50 mph
- US 50 - North of C Street to North of Blue Lake
Ave (Milepost 75.12 - 77.3): Increase speed limit
from 40 mph to 45 mph
- US 89 - Lake Tahoe Blvd (“Y”) to near Pope
Beach Entrance (Milepost 8.56 – 11.0 (The
Segment between Lake Tahoe Blvd and West
Way is in City Limits): Increase speed limit from
35 mph to 45 mph
The Department of Transportation shall take into
consideration the results of the public hearing in
determining whether to increase or decrease the
speed limit. Ca. Veh. Code § 22354.5
Any interested person may appear at the public
hearing and speak in favor or against this item. Written testimony may be delivered at, or prior to, the Public
Hearing addressed to the City Council in care of the
City Clerk to [email protected] or at the
address listed below.

Susan Blankenship
Susan Blankenship
Elected City Clerk
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530) 542-6005
Published: June 2, 2023
949
From: Anush Nejad
To: Brendan Ferry; Bruce Eisner; Charles Nelson; Dan Kikkert; David Reichel; Donaldo Palaroan; James Steed; Jim Marino; John Upton; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Amato; Peter Fink; Russ Dahl; Cecchi, Scott@Tahoe; Stan Hill; Scott Robbins; [email protected]; Rebecca Cremeen; Judy Clot; John Friedrich; Anush Nejad; Beth Vollmer; Gavin Feiger; Margo Osti; Ari Ramos, MPH; Jason Burke; Rachel Shaw; Ryan Murray; Nick Speal; Brooke Laine; Lisa Watson; Emily Dougherty; Kelley Edwards Cc: Joseph Irvin; Sue Blankenship
Subject: Caltrans Proposed Speed Limit Increase on US 50 and 89 Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 7:25:08 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear BAC members
Recently, Caltrans has conducted a new Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) along US 50 from Meyers to Stateline and US 89 from “Y” to City Limits.

As a result of this survey, Caltrans is proposing to increase the speed limits for three segments in the City of South Lake Tahoe:

US 50/89 – North of Kyburz Avenue to North of C Street (Milepost 74.48 – 75.12):

Increase speed limit from 45 mph to 50 mph
US 50 – North of C Street to North of Blue Lake Ave (Milepost 75.12 – 77.3):

Increase speed limit from 40 mph to 45 mph
US 89 – Lake Tahoe Blvd (“Y”) to near Pope Beach Entrance (Milepost 8.56 – 11.0 (The Segment between Lake Tahoe Blvd and West Way is in City Limits): Increase speed limit from 35 mph to 45 mph
We have scheduled a Public Hearing on June 20th to receive input from the public. Please review this information and submit any comments to Susan Blankenship, City Clerk, per our Public Hearing process. You can also attend the meeting and present any comments.

Thank you
Anush A. Nejad, P.E., T.E.

Director of Public Works
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Office: (530) 542-6031
Mobile: (530) 208-8304
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
950
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
951
From:

To: PublicComment
Subject: Comments for June 20, 2023, City Council meeting Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 10:20:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I am a resident of South Lake Tahoe and I'm against raising the speed limit US50 and SR89. I believe it will lead to more accidents. it's already difficult to pull out into US50 at the current speed limit. Not to mention walking along the sidewalk already feels dangerous with the speed the cars are traveling. Increasing the speed limit makes no sense to me. If anything it should be reduced.

Kevin Ahlborn
952
From: Jenny Butterfass
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed Limits
Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 1:09:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Regarding the proposed Speed Limit increasesI am concerned that increasing them will create more death for Bears in SLT on 89 and Highway 50.

I’ve seen solo bears as well as momma bears with cubs in the following places multiple times:
-On Highway 50 across from Casto Chiropractic/Tahoe Pizza- they sometimes move between the Ernies side to the other side, mindless of traffic
-On 89 all over the stretch between Fireside Lodge to Pope beach It might help to ask the Bear League what the incidents of bear/human accidents are in those areas to see if limits should possibly go down.

Thanks,
Jenny Butterfass
953
From: russ dahler
To: Anush Nejad; Brendan Ferry; Bruce Eisner; Charles Nelson; Dan Kikkert; David Reichel; Donaldo Palaroan; James Steed; Jim Marino; John Upton; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Amato; Peter Fink; Cecchi, Scott@Tahoe; Stan Hill; Scott Robbins; [email protected]; Rebecca Cremeen; Judy Clot; John Friedrich; Beth Vollmer; Gavin Feiger; Margo Osti; Ari Ramos, MPH; Jason Burke; Rachel Shaw; Ryan Murray; Nick Speal; Brooke Laine; Lisa Watson; Emily Dougherty; Kelley Edwards
Cc: Joseph Irvin; Sue Blankenship
Subject: RE: Caltrans Proposed Speed Limit Increase on US 50 and 89 Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 8:52:44 AM
Attachments: A245138EEE114C1F9B2E703290E8C166.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you. That is terrible news, Speed Kills.

Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Anush Nejad
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 7:25 AM
To: Brendan Ferry; Bruce Eisner; Charles Nelson; Dan Kikkert; David Reichel; Donaldo Palaroan; James Steed; Jim Marino; John Upton; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Amato; Peter Fink; Russ Dahl; Cecchi, Scott@Tahoe; Stan Hill; Scott Robbins; [email protected]; Rebecca Cremeen; Judy Clot; John Friedrich; Anush Nejad; Beth Vollmer; Gavin Feiger; Margo Osti; Ari Ramos, MPH; Jason Burke; Rachel Shaw; Ryan Murray; Nick Speal; Brooke Laine; Lisa Watson; Emily Dougherty; Kelley Edwards
Cc: Joseph Irvin; Sue Blankenship
Subject: Caltrans Proposed Speed Limit Increase on US 50 and 89 Dear BAC members
Recently, Caltrans has conducted a new Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) along US 50 from Meyers to Stateline and US 89 from “Y” to City Limits.

As a result of this survey, Caltrans is proposing to increase the speed limits for three segments in the City of South Lake Tahoe:

US 50/89 – North of Kyburz Avenue to North of C Street (Milepost 74.48 – 75.12):

Increase speed limit from 45 mph to 50 mph
US 50 – North of C Street to North of Blue Lake Ave (Milepost 75.12 – 77.3):

Thank you
Anush A. Nejad, P.E., T.E.

Director of Public Works
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Office: (530) 542-6031
Mobile: (530) 208-8304
[email protected]
954
www.cityofslt.us
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
955
From: [email protected]
To: Cristi Creegan; John Friedrich; Cody Bass; Devin Middlebrook; Tamara Wallace; Sue Blankenship Subject: Cal trans proposed speed limit increase
Date: Saturday, June 3, 2023 10:23:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Cal trans wants to increase the Hwy 50 speed limit from Blue lake ave. to C street in the city from 40 mph to 45 mph. The speed limit used to be 35 mph. When they increased it to 40 mph, there were more accidents. Increasing it to 45 mph will result in more accidents with even more extensive injuries. It will make it more dangerous for people to pull in and out of businesses. It will also further endanger bikes in the bike lanes. People already drive an average of 5 mph over the speed limit. If it is allowed to increase to 45 mph, many will drive 50 mph.

It is already unsafe that drivers are allowed to drive without chains and reduced speed limits between Meyers and Stateline when the roads are covered with ice and snow. Do you really want people drive 45 mph plus with ice and snow on the road in the city? Since chain controls in the city will never happen, instead we should have reduced and enforced speed limits during ice and snow conditions. This could be done with electronic signs or permanent signs that state dry speed limits and ice and snow speed limits. Please consider this as well as refusing to allow Cal Tans to increase the speed limit in the city.

Sent from Mail for Windows
956
From: [email protected]
To: PublicComment; Anush Nejad
Subject: Emerald bay road speed limit increase
Date: Saturday, June 3, 2023 3:11:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I will be on vacation during the June 20 hearing on the CalTrans proposed speed limit increases. I already commented that I am against speed limit increases in the City from C street to Blue Lake ave.

Now I read they also want to increase the speed from 35 mph to 45 mph on Hwy 89 from the Y to Camp Rich. Please keep it at 35. I live on Hazel drive and try to turn south(left) from 12th street onto Hwy 89. The majority of the tourists are already driving well above 35 mph making it unsafe to turn left. If they go 10 mph faster, it will be even more dangerous to turn left onto Hwy 89. Since CalTrans and the City never require chains on ice and snow covered Hwy 89 until 5 miles north of the Y, allowing people to drive 45 mph on ice and snow covered roads is insane. It is bad enough that so many visitors come to Tahoe and drive impaired and unprepared and lack experience driving in ice and snow. Increasing the speed limit makes it more unsafe for humans, the bears with cubs crossing the road and other wildlife. Higher speeds makes it unsafe to pull in and out of Hwy 89 businesses.

Sent from Mail for Windows
957
From: steve lannoy
To: PublicComment
Subject: speed limit increases on 50/89
Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 10:41:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Right off the bat, I have to say this is about the craziest proposal (from any agency) I have witnessed in my 33 years living in south lake Tahoe. I live on Glorene just off 8th street so the highway 89 proposal is closer to home (so to speak). But raising the speed limit anywhere in this town is contrary to pedestrian and biker safety. I have written several times to Caltrans over the years regarding this issue on 50 and 89.

I have two main concerns about raising the speed limit on these highways. First is for wildlife. I’ve observed way too many roadkills along these highways. That includes deer, bear (many) racoons, porcupines, coyotes, gray squirrels, douglas tree squirrels, golden mantled squirrels, beaver ( I was surprised by that one), and many birds including a rare nothern Saw-whet owl . It’s a bloodbath but unfortunately it is acceptable in our culture as a trade off to be able to get places quickly.

Second issue is in regards to nonmotorized use of these highways by humans. Getting across highway 89 anywhere from beyond the Y to 15th street, especially during the summer is a nightmare. I usually cross at 8th street or 10th street and have been involved in several close incidents. It usually stems from getting to the middle turn lane and not being able to continue across due to traffic coming in the opposite lane from the ones I got across. Unfortunately this is the only way to get across most summer days as the traffic is fairly continuous in one or the other direction, if not both. On numerous occasions I’ve seen families strung out across the highway with young children stuck in the center turn lane- this is especially dangerous at 12 street where a lot of cars are making a left turn onto 12th from 89. We have had one pedestrian hit and killed (that I’m aware of) at this intersection. Of course there have been many hit and injured/killed on highway 50 as I’m sure you are aware.

The agencies love to talk about making Tahoe a biker/pedestrian friendly town but when you look at their actions or lack thereof, a different reality is occurring. This latest measure to raise the speed limits, flys in the face of common sense when it comes this goal. So I do have one demand if the speed limits are raised (which I’d be surprised if they weren’t watching agency agendas in this town). The city calls on Caltrans to mitigate the impacts of the raised speed limit. Unfortunately, I’m not sure anything can be done to help wildlife as posting signs seems to be useless. But humans (ironically) can be helped. That would be to place crosswalks, blinking lights and whatever other safety features can be installed at key crossings like 12th street. Sounds like Caltrans may have one proposed on 50 by motel 6 and grocery outlet but many more are needed. I’ve written Caltrans in the past about this need but they always have excuses why this is not possible (i.e. snow removal).

So common sense would dictate that we provide more safe crossings, especially if speed limits are going up. This would be the very minimum mitigation that should be required in this “biker friendly town” (ha-ha).

In closing, I implore you not to allow Caltrans to raise speed limits. Lowering them would be the preferred outcome here. But as a second alternative, creating safe crossings throughout town would be the least mitigation I would hope for. Thanks for your consideration of my proposal- Steve 958
Lannoy
Sent from Mail for Windows
959
From: Cathy Meyer
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit proposal
Date: Sunday, June 4, 2023 8:18:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
As a Meyer’s resident I am very much against any increases to the speed limit. The volume of cars that pass pass thru is amazing. Even with cross walks and flashing yellow pedestrian lights cars often refuse to stop for pedestrians let a lone bikes.

If speed limit is increased it makes it that much more difficult for cars to slow down safely for pedestrians and bike traffic. The Caltrans general use rule of 85% traffic really should not apply in an area of Tahoe with our wild life and tourist volume. In fact, for an area that relies on tourism many tourist will not be able to comply with increased speed limits and further frustrate other drivers.

To keep traffic moving and avoiding accidents increasing speed limits will do just the opposite.

Sincerely,
Cathy Meyer
960
From: Bill O"Dea
To: PublicComment
Subject: Comments on CalTrans proposed speed limit increase on highway 50 Date: Saturday, June 3, 2023 4:26:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Yesterday I drove from Stateline to the Y. I found the existing speed limit a little uncomfortable for the road conditions:

1. The traffic lights need to be smarter. Speed up to 40, stop for light, repeat.

2. The road surface needs to be improved. We are supposed to slow down for potholes to minimize damage to our cars and the road surface. I often drove under the speed limit to avoid or minimize the impact from potholes.

3. Drivers leaving the establishments along the highway make a right turn onto the highway and have to speed up to the highway speed. Drivers leaving the highway have to slow almost to a stop to enter many establishments (Safeway and Grocery Outlet have short right turn lanes, but most do not).

4. Many people are going to drive 10+ miles over the speed limit, whatever it is and whatever the road conditions. I was passed by several people going 10+ miles faster than my 40 mph.

Prior to moving to the south Lake Tahoe area, I bicycle commuted about 100K miles in the South Bay area. If I was in a hurry I would ride on an expressway. The expressways have the advantage of a wide shoulder and no risk of drivers making a right turn in front of a bicyclist, but it is not a pleasant ride due to the speed difference.

Multi use bike paths are usually not a good option for someone riding 15 to 20 mph. I understand, it's not very pleasant to have someone pass you going 3 to 5 times faster than you're going, it's like riding a bicycle on the expressway. But if you're using a bicycle for transportation, going 10 mph and slowing down for pedal carts and pedestrians isn't going to get you to your destination on time.

Regards, Bill O'Dea
961
From: Li Terrell
To: PublicComment
Subject: Regarding the proposed speed limit increase 6/20 public comments Date: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:37:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear COuncil,
I am strongly urging you to NOT approve the proposed speed increases by Cal Trans.

Our town already has a speed problem. Increased wildlife deaths in the past few years and probably increased loss and injury to humans as well. Tahoe is NOT the city, we do not have freeways. The increased posted limits means people will go 5- 10mph OVER that. This is a downright dangerous idea.

Visitors here are from highly populated areas where going 70 on the freeway is considered "slow"... giving them a reason to speed up in our small town poses a threat to citizens, other visitors, pedestrians and local wildlife.

I myself was involved in a MVA in 2019 in a posted 50 mph area here in town.

Hitting something going at that speed is no picnic. It totaled my car and left me with injuries that took me out of work for over a month during our busy summer season (I was working in a Hotel at the time). I am still dealing with health issues from that accident today. The loss of wages, employers losing needed staff, and other increased costs should be something to consider.

It's ironic that the newest PSA signage for this summer is "Take it Slow, Tahoe" ...raising the speed limit is NOT the way to go, Tahoe.

Li Terrell
Tahoe local for 30+ years.

Lisa Terrell ~ Facilitator, Wordsmith
Wisdomkeeper Productions
Girl Friday Productions
“For even more than doers, we are deciders.

And once the decision is clear, the doing becomes effortless". ~Ralph Blum
962
From: [email protected]
To: PublicComment
Subject: Comment for June 20, 2023 city council meeting Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 2:38:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Marta Tuznik
Sent from my iPhone
963
From: Cheryl Van horn
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed increase
Date: Saturday, June 3, 2023 4:03:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The area where Caltrans wants to increase the speed limit on US50 would be very dangerous. There are a lot of bike riders and pedestrians using this stretch of road also. Children riding their bikes to and from school. With the lights at Carson, Sierra and Lodi. cars are already running red lights. If you increase the speed limit to 45 they will drive 50 mph (5 miles over the speed limit) and I feel it would cause unsafe roads for the traffic trying to gain access to US50 from residential side streets. For those reasons i am very strongly opposed.

Sent By Cheri Wakefield
964
From: [email protected]
To: PublicComment
Subject: Proposed speed limit increase
Date: Sunday, June 4, 2023 4:20:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello cityofslt
I read about the proposed possible increase in speed limits in Tahoe Tribune.

From the article:
"South Lake Tahoe Public Works Director Anush Nejad said CalTrans will have three options after the public hearing:

1. Leave things the same and do not change,

2. Reduce the speed limit in the area,

3. Have an option to raise the speed limit."
I think option number 3 should be ruled out , due to likely increase both in the number of speed involved accidents , and the severity of any accident that involves increased speed.

Every year , we seem to get more and more visitors.

Also , from Tribune article:
"The most widely accepted method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the “85th percentile speed”,
which is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving." In my experience , somewhere about 85 percent of the drivers will exceed the posted speed limit , no matter what the posted speed limit is --
so the above stated method for determining posted speed limit , may be somewhat questionable.

Thank you for consideration.

A local who does not want to see more vacationers , or locals , in accidents.

William.
965
From: Lois Yuzbick
To: PublicComment
Subject: speed limit increase
Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 4:05:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I have lived in this town for almost 50 years and I can’t believe how fast people drive I have found that living in Christmas Valley that sometimes I pull over two or three times when I am going to town so that people can just pass me. I can’t believe that anyone would even think about increasing the speed limit they(locals and especially the tourists) already go 10 to 20 miles an hour over the speed limit anyway. who’s idea was this?
Please do not increase the speed limit!!!!!
Sent from my iPad
966
US 50/89 – Caltrans Proposed
Speed Limit Changes
Council Presentation – June 20, 2023
967
Speed Survey Purpose and Requirements
Per the 2020 California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, Caltrans is required to conduct an E&TS to post speed limits that are lower than 65mph (4 lanes) or 55 mph (2 lanes) on state highways.

Per the 2020 California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, Caltrans is required to conduct an E&TS to post speed limits that are lower than 65mph (4 lanes) or 55 mph (2 lanes) on state highways.

Engineering and traffic surveys are also referred to as speed zones. Speed limits are established by an E&TS by considering the following:
 Prevailing speeds (or 85th percentile speeds).
 Collision history
 Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions which are not readily apparent to the driver.  Other factors that may be considered while developing E&TS are business or residential density and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
968
Caltrans 2023 E&TS Results
Segment
Post Miles (PM)
Approximate Major Cross Streets
(Post Miles do not exactly match with
cross streets)
Existing Speed
Limit
(MPH)
Proposed Speed
Limit
(MPH)
US 50 – PM 70.50-70.90 Ciruga St. to Hopi Ave (County) 45 45 – No Change US 50 – PM 70.90-71.65 Hopi Ave to Arapahoe St. (County) 40 40 – No Change US 50 – PM 74.48-75.12 Kyburz Ave to C Street (City) 45 Increase to 50 US 50 – PM 75.12-77.3 C Street to Blue Lake Ave (City) 40 Increase to 45 US 50 – PM 77.3-79.66 Blue Lake Ave. to Wildwood Ave (City) 40 40 – No change US 50 – PM 79.66-80.44 Blue Lake Ave to Stateline (City) 35 35- No Change US 89 – PM 8.56-11.0 Lake Tahoe Blvd ("Y") to Camp Richardson Entrance (City and County) 35 Increase to 45
US 89 – PM 11.0 to 12.12 Camp Richardson to Cathedral Road (County) 35 Increase to 40 969
970
Staff Comments and Response
In reviewing E&TS and discussion with Caltrans staff, staff believes that many factors that are not readily apparent to drivers that is required with an E&TS were adequately considered in the 2023 E&TS as required by California Manual for Setting Speeds.
 "In accordance with CVC Section 627, an E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing free flow speeds in the proposed roadway segment, a review of the collision history, and a review of roadside conditions. Residential and business density as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety, should also be considered. The E&TS should document compliance with the conditions of CVC Section 627 and identify conditions not readily apparent to a motoris.t" (emphasis added) (Page 32 of the Manual).  "Non-apparent conditions include those high volume traffic generators (vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian) not visible and access points that are not visible to the motorist. Warning signs can be placed for such conditions; however, this is not always adequate. Every attempt should be made to make the motorist aware of non-apparent conditions before a decision is made to lower the speed limit. Non-apparent conditions may not be used to lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph if the speed limit is also being lowered for a higher-than-average collision rate." (emphasis added) (Page 36 of the Manual).

In reviewing E&TS and discussion with Caltrans staff, staff believes that many factors that are not readily apparent to drivers that is required with an E&TS were adequately considered in the 2023 E&TS as required by California Manual for Setting Speeds.
 "In accordance with CVC Section 627, an E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing free flow speeds in the proposed roadway segment, a review of the collision history, and a review of roadside conditions. Residential and business density as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety, should also be considered. The E&TS should document compliance with the conditions of CVC Section 627 and identify conditions not readily apparent to a motoris.t" (emphasis added) (Page 32 of the Manual).  "Non-apparent conditions include those high volume traffic generators (vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian) not visible and access points that are not visible to the motorist. Warning signs can be placed for such conditions; however, this is not always adequate. Every attempt should be made to make the motorist aware of non-apparent conditions before a decision is made to lower the speed limit. Non-apparent conditions may not be used to lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph if the speed limit is also being lowered for a higher-than-average collision rate." (emphasis added) (Page 36 of the Manual). 971
Staff Comments and Response (Cont.)
Based on National Transportation Safety Board finding, setting the speed limit at 85% will have unintended consequences and will lead to higher operating speeds, counter to the US 50 Safety objectives and City’s vision for the corridor.
 A study entitled "Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles," 2017, NTSB, concludes the following: "Typically, speed limits are set by statute, but adjustments to statutory speed limits are generally based on the observed operating speeds for each road segment— specifically, the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Raising speed limits to match the 85th percentile speed can result in unintended consequences. It may lead to higher operating speeds, and, thus a higher 85th percentile speed. In general, there is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate for all road types." (emphasis added). (Page x of the Study).

Based on National Transportation Safety Board finding, setting the speed limit at 85% will have unintended consequences and will lead to higher operating speeds, counter to the US 50 Safety objectives and City’s vision for the corridor.
 A study entitled "Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles," 2017, NTSB, concludes the following: "Typically, speed limits are set by statute, but adjustments to statutory speed limits are generally based on the observed operating speeds for each road segment— specifically, the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Raising speed limits to match the 85th percentile speed can result in unintended consequences. It may lead to higher operating speeds, and, thus a higher 85th percentile speed. In general, there is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate for all road types." (emphasis added). (Page x of the Study). 972
Staff Comments and Response (Cont.)
 Additionally, increasing the speed limits on the three segments within the City is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43), which allows Caltrans and local agencies to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups and the existence of business and residence districts adjacent to state highways in setting speed limits on state highways.  AB 43 became effective on January 1, 2022, and established a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour in business districts on state highways with certain exceptions, per California Vehicle Code section 22352. Most, if not all, of US 50 and 89 within City limits qualifies as “business district” under California Vehicle Code section 235. While the City and Caltrans have not yet taken steps to reduce the speed limit under AB 43, and the City is not authorized to do so until June 30, 2024, City staff believes that portions of US 50 and 89 through the City should be considered and would qualify for a speed reduction under AB 43.d and Italic are staff edits).1 (Page X of the Study).  Additionally, increasing the speed limits on the three segments within the City is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43), which allows Caltrans and local agencies to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups and the existence of business and residence districts adjacent to state highways in setting speed limits on state highways.  AB 43 became effective on January 1, 2022, and established a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour in business districts on state highways with certain exceptions, per California Vehicle Code section 22352. Most, if not all, of US 50 and 89 within City limits qualifies as “business district” under California Vehicle Code section 235. While the City and Caltrans have not yet taken steps to reduce the speed limit under AB 43, and the City is not authorized to do so until June 30, 2024, City staff believes that portions of US 50 and 89 through the City should be considered and would qualify for a speed reduction under AB 43.d and Italic are staff edits).1 (Page X of the Study). 973
Staff Conclusion and Recommendations
 Staff concludes that there are factors, plus the crash history in the corridor, which have not been fully considered with the 2023 E&TS, which must be accounted for, before Caltrans makes any changes to the speed limits.
 Furthermore, staff recommends that Caltrans begins a corridor study, in coordination with the City, to implement effective traffic calming and non-vehicular mobility measures along US 50 and US 89, which is consistent with the City's 2023-2028 Strategic Plan. Examples of traffic calming measures include but are not limited to the addition of Class IV bicycle lanes, physical changes to the roadway geometrics, such as bulb-out, reduced lane widths, elimination of lanes on US 89, or other similar and safe measures.
 Attached Resolution summarizes the issues and recommendations  Staff concludes that there are factors, plus the crash history in the corridor, which have not been fully considered with the 2023 E&TS, which must be accounted for, before Caltrans makes any changes to the speed limits.
 Furthermore, staff recommends that Caltrans begins a corridor study, in coordination with the City, to implement effective traffic calming and non-vehicular mobility measures along US 50 and US 89, which is consistent with the City's 2023-2028 Strategic Plan. Examples of traffic calming measures include but are not limited to the addition of Class IV bicycle lanes, physical changes to the roadway geometrics, such as bulb-out, reduced lane widths, elimination of lanes on US 89, or other similar and safe measures.
 Attached Resolution summarizes the issues and recommendations 974
From: marc alper
To: PublicComment
Subject: Proposed speed Limit Increase
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:09:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Member, I recently read the proposal to increase the speed limit in certain sections of South Lake Tahoe, and, as a 27-year resident of SLT, I am adamantly against such an action. Given the habitual poor-to-abysmal condition of the roads in the Basin and the fact that people often pass me in a dangerous manner when I am going right at the posted limit currently, I have two suggestions. #1 DECREASE speed limits by at least 5 mph. #2. Enforce posted speed limits: It would keep people from driving recklessly in our beautiful town. It will cut down on accidents and therefore Emergency Services calls. Additionally, it would raise a substantial amount of revenue for the city. -Thank you, Marc Alper, South Lake Tahoe 975
From: Carol Beahan
To: PublicComment
Subject: Against Proposed Speed Limit Increases in South Lake Tahoe Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:15:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the City of South Lake Tahoe and Caltrans,
I strongly oppose increasing the speed limit along SR 89 and Highway 50 in our town as the speed limits as they stand are sufficient for drivers and any increases pose an increased public and wildlife safety risk. Several pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, and scooters travel within and cross the highway right away in locations outside of lighted crosswalks and would be at greater risk of injury or even loss of life if speed limits are further increased in these areas.

Scooter renters in particular rarely wear protective equipment and often (illegally) include young children on the scooter with them. Anecdotally I've witnessed more cars run red lights in the past few years and increasing speed limits will only likely lead to an increase in this dangerous behavior as well.

On behalf of myself, my teenage daughter and the local wildlife that I love, please work to leave the speed limits as they are not and do not allow an increase.

Thank you,
Carol Beahan
City of SLT Resident
976
From: Aria Benham
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:38:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello wonderful Lake Tahoe city council members,
I am writing to share how much I love Lake Tahoe. And how much I have watched it become an unsafe space for pedestrians and wildlife. Born and raised and beyond excited to remain, I believe with the correct framework we can share this space in a safe and loving way. I am using my voice today to encourage a reduction in the speed limit. I have observed when the speed limit increased from 35 to 40, it really went from people driving 40 to people driving 45-50. Let us pave the way for safety and slow everyone down to the natural beauty that surrounds us daily. I loved visiting Yosemite to understand how they prioritize safety and serenity, the world is so rush rush, let us remain in a slow and steady path. Not only a reduction, but also enforcement. We watch as middle schoolers commute with no helmets on riding in the wrong direction and a speed limit increase would mean life or death being struck at such speeds. Please consider our community in this decision. thank you for your time and consideration and your love for Tahoe.
977
From: K. Brosch
To: PublicComment
Subject: speed limit increase public comment for meeting 6/20/23 Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:43:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I oppose any speed limit increase in South Lake Tahoe. Highway 50 & 89 are dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Increasing the speed limit will only make the highway more dangerous. If anything the proposed change to the highways should be a decrease to the speed limits. There are few cross walks on these roads. Many kids are going to and from school, bus stops and activities on these roads alone. Let's value our kids and community members more than we value traffic flow and tourism.

Kelly Brosch
978
From: felix brosch
To: PublicComment
Subject: Caltrans speed limit increase:(
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:33:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

TAKE IT SLOW TAHOE
The faster we go the more we put ourselves( people, biker, animals,..) in danger. This is a bad trend.

Best regards, Felix Brosch
Sent from my iPad
979
From: Mike Campbell
To: PublicComment
Cc: Barbara Beard
Subject: Caltrans" Proposed Speed Limit Increases on SR 89 Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3:04:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Greetings, City Council Members -
Unfortunately I am unable to attend the City Council Meeting on June 20th, but would like to comment on the proposal to increase the existing speed limit on SR89 from Lake Tahoe Boulevard at the Y to near the Pope Beach Road intersection from 35 mph to 45 mph.

This proposal sounds like a bad idea. It doesn’t make sense to increase the speed limit on that stretch of the highway, where the roadway actually narrows as it approaches that very congested area of Pope Beach Road and the Camp Richardson campgrounds in the northbound direction. For traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety, as well as for wildlife crossing reasons, the speed limit should remain at 35 mph.

As all local residents and most seasonal visitors know, that stretch of highway is extremely congested during the summer months. By increasing the speed limit, CalTrans would be increasing the likelihood of accidents, particularly involving vehicles and bicycles. Although there is an off-street bike trail that parallels the highway, there seems to be an increasing number of road bike enthusiasts that prefer to ride on the highway now and must share the travel way with cars, and there would be greater risk to them. In addition, there are limited opportunities for pedestrians to cross the busy roadway to access the lake and beach amenities from the campgrounds at any signalized crossing facility. They would certainly be put at greater risk if the speed limit were to be increased.

I hope that the Council will consider these safety issues carefully when making their recommendations to CalTrans.

Sincerely,
Mike Campbell, AICP
Director of Environmental Analysis

PLANNING DESIGN COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY 2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 205
980
San Jose, California 95131 | USA
office: 650-327-0429 extension: 3270 mobile: 408-239-3610 [email protected]
www.migcom.com
facebook twitter linkedin instagram
981
From: Vicky Chaucer
To: PublicComment
Subject: Raising speed limit
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 3:44:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The fact that you guys think it’s a good idea to raise the speed limit is idiotic , I work on the corner of 89 and Lukin I have seen wildlife hit bikers hit and numerous accidents ! The problem is you raise it and then they go 10 mph over that! What is the reason for increase?
Vicky lee Chaucer
982
From: Diane Dickert
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed Limits
Date: Friday, June 9, 2023 10:11:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please do NOT change the speed limits. We have speedy electric bikes and scooters in the summer to watch out for and potholes to navigate. Winter has additional challenges.

Take it Slow Tahoe!
Diane Dickert, Realtor
983
From: Michael Habicht
To: PublicComment
Subject: Highway Speeds
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:15:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Leaders and Cal Trans,
I am an emergency physician in South Lake Tahoe and I have worked at Barton Hospital for nearly 12 years. I have seen the consequences when speed and fragile humans mix. From rental scooters crossing traffic and bicycles being clipped to the inebriated wandering into the street at midnight or just a family trying to cross highway 50. We should be striving to make our city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Wider sidewalks slower traffic more stop lights and more places to cross. The proposed increase is speed is a pending disaster waiting to happen and the exact opposite of what we need or want in our city. The speed limit should be reduced from Kingsbury Grade to Camp Rich and Meyers not increased. I propose we extend the 25mph limit across town just like the Casino Corridor already has.

Please do not risk the lives of our citizens by allowing a dangerous speed increase Sincerely
Michael Habicht, MD
984
From: joshua hutchens
To: PublicComment
Subject: speed limit change
Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 7:34:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
please do not RAISE the speed limit in south lake tahoe. in a spot with frequent pedestrian collisions and fatalities (in front of grocery outlet) the last thing we need is higher speeds. the speed limit on emerald bay road should also not be raised. i understand the 85% idea but people wouldn’t be traveling that fast if we had enforcement of the existing speed limit. trying to cross the road to recreation at tahoe mountain from the bike path is scary as it is with average speed over 45mph and no opportunity for pedestrians to cross for anywhere within a mile. raising the speed limit in that area is going to lead to injuries or fatalities, and at what cost?! so people can get to emerald bay faster? so they can drive home from the beacon at higher speeds? let’s consider the safety of children, cyclist and pedestrians over the incremental convenience of motorists. this town is already unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians and being built around a highway makes RAISING the speed limit a colossal mistake. please include my comments on why not to raise speed limits in south lake tahoe, especially while current limits are not enforced.
joshua hutchens believes in safer communities, not ones that cars can drive through faster 985
From: jessica lazzarino
To: PublicComment
Subject: Proposed speed increase
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 11:27:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a full time resident and would like the speed decreased. I’m concerned about the pedestrians and kids that commute on the roads. The drivers already speed through town and it’s dangerous. Please decrease the speed limit.

Sent from my iPhone
986
From: Victor Lyon
To: PublicComment
Subject: Proposed speed limit increase
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 6:07:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the proposed speed limit increases, especially between the Y and Pope Beach where the speed limit seems excessively slow. That said, any speed increases should be mindfully implemented (e.g., giving drivers time, space, and sight-lines to slow down for more congested areas) for public safety and to avoid further speed limit changes.

Thank you.
987
From: Sue Blankenship on behalf of PublicComment
To: mms.att.net"
Cc: PublicComment
Subject: RE:

Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 9:46:50 AM
Attachments: image001.png
No just no to increasing the speed limit on Hwy 50 or Emerald Bay Road.

How many pedestrians, cars, and wildlife need to be hit before the government puts the rights of the citizens on a par with those of the tourists who are increasingly responsible for destroying our town’s beaches and forests?
Crime as well is up commensurate with their increase as well as the influx of litter.

Do we want motor vehicle accidents up as well?
As a longtime resident and having run a successful business in Tahoe for over 30 years, I’ve observed our town improving in many areas and yet getting worse in others.

Increasing the speed limit would only enhance the negatives in Tahoe’s evolution.

Susan Blankenship, CMC
City Clerk
http://www.cityofslt.us
Please note that email correspondence with the City of South Lake Tahoe, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.

From: @mms.att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:26 PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject:

This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
988
From: Janet Moughler
To: PublicComment
Subject: Raising speed limits
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:06:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I live in Meyers, but most of my activities are in South Lake Tahoe. I think the idea of raising the speed limits is dangerous and ridiculous. As it is, our local wildlife, especially bears and coyotes, people’s dogs and cats, and bicyclists and pedestrians are being injured and dying far too often. Just because so many ignore the speed limit and drive faster seems like a pretty lame reason for raising the limits. They will continue to drive above the limit.

Please, this is Tahoe, for God’s sake. It’s not the Bay Area, even though many visitors drive like it. Often, visitors are unsure of where they are going and slow down, which is already hazardous enough at present limits. Also, these raised limits will also be in effect during the snowy and icy winters, where increased speed is the least desirable.

Some say the present limits are already too high, which is the case under some conditions. Please just leave the speed limits as they are now and ticket the speeders instead of rewarding them.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jan Moughler
989
From: Margo Osti
To: PublicComment; Anush Nejad
Subject: CalTrans Request for Increase of Speed Limits
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 11:50:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please accept my written comment into the public record concerning the CalTrans proposal to increase the speed limit on Highway 50 through the City of South Lake Tahoe.

The interest of CalTrans is in conflict with the best interest and safety of the people of South Lake Tahoe.

CalTrans goal is to move vehicles as quickly as is safe upon its highways. In its study, the recommended speed is 45 miles per hour within the City’s limits. Although this speed would work fine on the open road, it is not safe within the City. Highway 50 serves as our “main” street. We all use Hwy.50 as the road to and from our businesses every day of the week. The ingress and egress to the businesses are detrimental to the higher speed and the higher speed is deadly to those crossing and entering the flow of traffic. Back in the 90's, CalTrans wanted to raise the speed to 50 mph within the City and recognized the unsafe condition of the ingress/egress. CalTrans worked very hard to convince the City Council to eliminate all the access driveways to the businesses AND many of the side streets AND the number of stop lighted intersections. They failed to convince the council. Now they are back looking to impose that speed anyway. Please tell CalTrans no.

As a California driver for decades, I, for one, normally drive 5 mph over the posted speed. I am not alone in this driving practice. By posting 45mph on Hwy 50, CalTrans is actually bringing the speed up to 50mph, maybe more. What may not be understood by CalTrans is the effect of the Hwy 50 speed limit upon our other city streets. As a resident living with my driveway contiguous with Pioneer Trail, I know first hand what happened when CalTrans raised the speed limit from 35mph to 40mph. People traveling on Al Tahoe Blvd. and Pioneer Trail began traveling those streets at that new higher speed. If approved, the people will now travel our city streets at a higher speed which is unacceptable within a residential areas. Please tell CalTrans no.

Highway 50 may be a State highway, the Lincoln Highway, and the burden of CalTrans, but first and foremost, it is one of our city streets and must be maintained within the confines of the people who live here and call South Lake Tahoe home. We are not just a blur for passing vehicles. We are a community deserving respect and safe speed limits. Please tell CalTrans no.

Submitted by
Margo Osti
990
From: Kathy Pappis
To: PublicComment
Subject: Possible increase in speed limit
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:04:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please do NOT raise the speed limit!!!!
I believe the speed limit should be set at 40 mph on all major roads in Tahoe. Protect the wildlife, slow down and enjoy the scenery.

Kathy Pappis
991
From: Marianne Poohachoff
To: PublicComment
Subject: Raising speed limits
Date: Sunday, June 11, 2023 7:34:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am against raising the speed limits as planned. Leave them the same or even lower them. It seems people are driving faster and recklessly as it is.

Marianne Poohachoff
Count and city property owner
992
From: Joel Rosenfield
To: PublicComment
Subject: Proposed new speed limits
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:21:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am opposed to raising the speed limit on US 50 east of the Y.

I find the current 40mph speed limit to be a good compromise between pace and safety. I fear that if the speed limit is raised, it will be more difficult and less safe to enter and exit the many businesses and side streets along that stretch.

Thanks,
- Joel Rosenfield
Bijou Pines
993
From: Lisa Utzig Schafer
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit proposal response
Date: Friday, June 9, 2023 1:11:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am writing in response to the proposal to raise speed limits in the city. I am asking for the current speed limits to remain the same!
We already have issues with people speeding in town and areas without proper lighting or cross walks. I believe that raising the speed limit will put more people, animals, snd wildlife at risk. I myself hit an animal on 89 last summer going 35 miles an hour on a poorly lit area and I was extremely traumatized from the experience. I also worry about my son riding his bike around town the way things are, and raising the speed limits would just create more concerns and potential hazards.

Thank you,
Lisa Utzig (Schafer)
Local business owner
Sent from my iPhone
994
From: @att.net
To: PublicComment
Subject: speed limit changes
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:37:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello, I would like to address the speed limit changes proposed by Cal Trans. THE SPEED LIMITS SHOULD STAY THE SAME! Reasons being there are way toooo many close calls with bikes, scooters, pedestrians as it is with the speed limits the way they are. Another fact is a lot of drivers consistently drive above the posted speeds by at least 5 miles an hour and even more than that. We are a tourist town and drivers and pedestrians and bike/scooter users who are tourists are in another “vacation mental space” and are not paying attention. The other aspect is distracted driving either by cell phones or looking around at the scenery. I believe all those factors and probably more Cal Trans does not understand the nature of our town and should in NO WAY increase speeds on the proposed roadways.

Best Regards,
Annette Schoonover
995
From: lisa s
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit increase a terrible idea
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 11:49:10 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please reject the speed limit increase. We have enough auto accidents in town. This would likely triple them.

Please vote NO! Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
996
From: DAWN SHREVE
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed increase
Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 10:37:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
We live just a couple of lots off of Hwy 89 at 13th St. I would ask that the speed limit NOT be increased… there’s already a LOT of speeding without giving license to drive even faster.This is a really bad idea… has anyone contacted EMS for statistics on accidents on Hwy 89? There is always frequent sirens that stop between 10th and West Way. I cringe to think of kids who get hit while on the rental bikes. Especially as the part of town so close to the bike paths and beaches there are many bikers in the area too. There are 3 different bike rental companies, four if you count BlueZone.

There is also a huge bear population that frequently cross Hwy 89… I’ve seen several crossing in the past few weeks.

If anything I’d LOVE to see it patrolled more… during Spring-Fall there are a LOT of cars with loud mufflers who use it as their own race track… in the middle of the night I frequently hear speeds up to 80mph I’m guessing.

Thank you for your time!
Dawn Shreve
997
From: Michele Sterling
To: PublicComment
Subject: Sped limit increase
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:19:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I just wanted to say I think raising the speed limit is a terrible idea ! Michele Sterling
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
998
From: V
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed Limit Increase
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:48:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
I do not want to see the speed limits increased. Too many people already speed. Raising the speed limit would make them go even faster. We have wildlife, bikers with dogs, bus stops, potholes, snow and ice, and a lot of other reasons why slower is better. Why is everyone in such a huge hurry? Thank you,
Vee
24 year SLT full time resident and homeowner
999
From: K Vincent
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit increase
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 6:04:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

South Lake Tahoe City Council and Cal Trans,
Thank you for allowing us to respond to this issue via email for those who can not make the meeting.

In response to the proposed speed limit increase, I believe it would lack any common sense to increase it in all areas. The idea of increasing the speed limit on SR 89 from Lake Tahoe Blvd. at the Y to near the Pope Beach entrance speed limit from 35 to 45 mph is preposterous and dangerous. That area is highly trafficked by bears going to the lake and back. I personally have witnessed a large bear get hit by a car when the traffic was continuous bumper to bumper going 15-20 miles per hour. Which should have never happened because people can't yield to life. That area also tends to get black ice in the winter as I have experienced. It's always busy with people stopping to park off the road to load and unload, making U-turns etc. Bicycles ride along that road which makes it even more dangerous on such a narrow road. People already drive too fast on all the proposed roads. Now we have to dodge pot holes constantly. I've lived in the basin for approx. 49 years, and feel the speed limits should decrease by 5 mile per hour in all areas. Slow down and enjoy the view. This is a tourist town and many do not know exactly where their going and drive slow and make unexpected decisions. As it is, people drive 5 to 10 miles per hour over the speed limit on a regular basis. Increasing the speed limit will only make driving our roads more dangerous for all.

I feel the speed limits should decrease by 5 mile per hour for all. Please do not increase the speed limits!
Thank you.

Kathryn Vincent
1000
PO Box 1147 | Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 | tahoebike.org
June 19, 2023
City of South Lake Tahoe
1740 D Street
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
RE: Agenda Item 15, Public Hearing for California Department of Transportation’s Proposed Speed Limit Increase on Sections of US 50, US 89, and US 50/89 Dear Mayor Creegan, Mayor Pro Tem Bass, and members of the City Council, The Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition is an all-volunteer nonprofit organization dedicated to making Lake Tahoe more bicycle friendly. We’d like to thank the City for all it has done in recent years to make it easier and safer for people to bike in South Lake Tahoe. We applaud the recent completion of the Lake Tahoe Boulevard project that reduced vehicle lanes west of the Y and added bike lanes and a shared use path. We applaud the ongoing work to implement the Tahoe Valley Greenbelt bikeway behind The Crossing. We applaud your grant application to fund a Vision Zero study with a goal of eliminating traffic fatalities. You put all of this effort into designing a safe and inviting Tahoe Valley town center, but your work is undermined by ever increasing vehicle speeds as motorists zoom through our community, leaving pollution and accidents in their wake.

The Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition wholeheartedly supports staff’s recommendations to push back on Caltrans’ proposal to raise speed limits on U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 89, and to exercise your authority where applicable to implement lower speed limits and traffic-calming measures to reduce vehicular speeds. Assembly Bill 43 allows local control starting next summer; we can start to plan for that now. We appreciate and support staff’s criticisms of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, which failed to adequately account for the area’s collision history, roadside conditions, business and residential density, and active transportation safety.

We recognize that the physical design of a roadway has a greater effect on vehicle speeds than posted speed limits. That’s why we are looking forward to the implementation of the Highway 50 Safety Project next year, and continue to plead with Caltrans to include narrower lane widths and protected bike lanes along that east-west corridor. But Emerald Bay Road north and south of the Y intersection need similar treatment. We ask the City to work with Caltrans on a Corridor Plan to identify ways to improve safety in this corridor, not only on SR 89, but on both sides of the intersection. We recommend reducing four lanes to two, as they are already two-lane roads from Emerald Bay and Meyers, and the increase in lanes encourages acceleration into town. We recommend protected bike lanes with seasonally removable barriers, and crosswalks too. 1001
Beyond this particular intersection, we applaud the traffic calming initiatives that the Public Works department has worked on throughout the city, and look forward to further expansion of this program.

We encourage the City to use its existing authority to reduce the speed limit in front of the South Tahoe Middle School, and along Ski Run Blvd.

Thank you for all you have done to support active transportation. We encourage you to stand firm in your commitment to taking bold steps to protect people in South Lake Tahoe from traffic injuries and fatalities.

Sincerely,
Nick Speal, Board President
on behalf of the Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition Board of Directors Mission: "Helping Tahoe Become More Bicycle Friendly"
1002
From: tyler alves
To: PublicComment
Subject: Highway 50/89 speed limits
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 5:45:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion as a resident.

I would love to see South Lake Tahoe continue the recent improvements to become an amazing walking and biking friendly city. It is very hard to change the fact that we have a highway running through the prime parts of the city. However, we should keep the speeds as low as allowable to provide for the enjoyment and safety of these amazing areas.

Locals live here, and tourists visit, to be able to safely recreate and enjoy the outdoors. Please don’t move us toward less safe roads, and if possible, push for lowering speeds on hwy 50/89.

Thanks,
Tyler Alves
1003
1004
From: Kathleen Bindl
To: PublicComment
Subject: Proposed Speed limits Public Comment
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:48:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello and thank you for the opportunity to comment. As a long time resident of SLT, I would like to oppose the proposed speed limit increases due to safety concerns for bikers, pedestrians, and vehicles. Anyone who frequently drives these roads knows that people are already exceeding the speed limit, if it goes higher, vehicles will drive even faster, likely causing more accidents. What is the reason for increasing the speed limits anyways?? A Lot of our streets are not very walkable/bikeable and I frequently see people crossing at random locations. I witnessed an elderly person last week crossing near Grocery Outlet and just barely missed getting struck by a vehicle.Situations like this will become even more dangerous if the speed limit is increased. This proposal goes against the City's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making biking/walking conditions more dangerous and disencouraging residents/visitors to bike or walk. We also know that vehicles need to slow down to make left or right turns into businesses along the highway, if someone is speeding behind you they are more likely to hit you. Thank you for considering this comment and I urge you to oppose increasing the speed limits.

Kathleen Bindl
1005
From:

To: PublicComment
Subject: Lake Tahoe visitor comment Against Proposals to Raise Speed Limits on Highway 50 Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 10:24:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City of South Lake Tahoe, I’m an cycling enthusiast from Walnut Creek. I visit South Lake Tahoe often, I join many other bicycle riders who are against proposals to raise speed limits on Highway

50. Here are the main points of our arguments:
• We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
• We are thankful to the City of South Lake Tahoe and Caltrans, along with other Tahoe partners, for investing in infrastructure that is making it safer and easier to get around the south shore by bicycle.
•
We oppose increasing motor vehicle speeds on Highway 50 and SR 89, which effectively serves as South Lake Tahoe's main streets.
• Instead of raising speed limits, we urge Caltrans to reduce speed limits and continue to implement measures to curb vehicle speeds, calm traffic, and reduce the risk of death and serious injury from traffic crashes.
• We thank the City for its leadership on this important safety issue, and encourage the City to pass its resolution opposing the speed limit increase. •
In addition to advocating the community’s concerns to Caltrans, we encourage the City to explore all options under state law for taking over the authority to set speeds on our community roadways should Caltrans not reconsider its proposal.
• Adopting changes to the Highway 50 and SR 89 roadways to reduce speeds and improve safety would protect community members and visitors in our community, would be a policy choice more consistent with the Caltrans Complete Streets and Caltrans Main Street policies, and would build on the value of the bicycle and pedestrian investments the City has made to date and continues to prioritize.

Please keep cycling safe for South Lake Tahoe.

Thanks,
Jordon Bluestein
1006
From: Karen M. Borges
To: PublicComment
Subject: Public Comment re: Speed Limit
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 9:10:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor Creegan and council Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the issue of the proposal of Cal Trans to increase speed limits. I am not in favor of increasing speed limits on Hwys 50 or 89. It is my opinion that at 40 mph along Lake Tahoe Blvd is already too high.

I agree with the recommendation of City safety directors that the City Council should oppose raising the speed limits as defined in your staff report, namely, “Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution opposing California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) proposed speed limit increase on sections of US 50, US 89, and US 50/89 and directing the City Clerk to prepare and submit the Resolution and Minute Order of the public hearing to Caltrans.” Increasing speed limits increases the risk of injury to pedestrians, anyone using bicycles, motorized bikes, electric powered scooter as well as to those in cars and trucks. The increase of speed is inconsistent with efforts of the City Council and staff to provide a safer environment for residents and visitors.

Karen M Borges
1007
From: MARY BRYDEN
To: PublicComment
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 5:32:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. mailto:[email protected]
Please do not raise the speed limits on highways 50 and 89 in South Lake Tahoe, including the section of highway 89 to Spring Creek Road. These are very busy, heavily used roads. As it is now, it is difficult to make a left turn onto highway 89 going southbound towards the "Y" intersection. There are no stoplights on this section of roadway as an alternative.

The proposed speed limit increase is a dangerous risk to pedestrians, bike riders and wildlife.

This proposal is in direct opposition to the "Slow down Tahoe" safety campaign.

Local resident,
Mary Bryden
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1008
From: Dan Cockrum
To: PublicComment
Subject: Agenda Item 15, 6/20/2023 Council Meeting
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 10:58:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The proposed speed increases in and around the “Y” at South Lake Tahoe also increase the confusion for those unfamiliar with the posted speed limit. The prior move to 40 mph has set a standard that should be adopted throughout the area using the “Y” as a focal point. Increases above 40 mph only serve to increase the potential for accidents in an area suffering from congestion and numerous distractions, plus impatient drivers that tailgate and ignore the post limit. The only section that should be increased to 40 mph (to agree with adjacent “Y” roadways) is Highway 89 M.P

8.56 to 12.12. This section has been used by the CHP as a speed trap for years and 35 mph is unrealistic.
1009
From: Michelle Douglas
To: PublicComment
Subject: No increase to speed limits PLEASE
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 6:09:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I’m late in my comment but DO NOT increase speed limits. Please. That’s a terrible idea.

Sent from my iPhone
1010
From: Evan Goldin
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limits
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 8:45:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi folks,
I wanted to comment on the upcoming proposal to modify speed limits on US50 and 89.

I live at the Y, one block from the proposed area where the city is considering raising speed limits. I appreciate the opportunity for feedback and I wanted to express my utter disappointment in this proposal.

US50 especially is our main street. For our main street, it's an incredibly dangerous place to drive, walk or bike. We need to making our main street safer, and raising speed limits would be going in the opposite direction. You would be making our streets less safe, and it's likely that people will die as a result of this decision.

No one needs to drive through the densest part of our town at 50mph. Is that worth someone dying?
Now that I have a 1-year-old, this is on my mind more than ever. I fear for my family's safety, especially after my wife and I along a spot on 50/Winnemucca that just a minute later saw a high-speed rollover accident — where the fence is still broken from it, years later.

Please work with Caltrans to find the authority to lower these speed limits, not raise them.

Adopting changes to the Highway 50 and SR 89 roadways to reduce speeds and improve safety would protect community members and visitors in our community, would be a policy choice more consistent with the Caltrans Complete Streets and Caltrans Main Street policies, and would build on the value of the bicycle and pedestrian investments the City has made to date and continues to prioritize.

Please, take the lead, and keep our streets safe.
- Evan Goldin
Helen Ave
1011
From: Sherry Hao
To: PublicComment
Subject: Opposition to Caltran"s speed increases on Hwy 50 Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 8:27:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear South Lake Tahoe City Councilmembers and Staff,
We truly appreciate the strides South Lake Tahoe has taken to become a bicycle-friendly destination. Thank you for your work and commitment to make this a reality. The proposed speed increases by Caltrans along Highway 50 are a significant step backwards for our community. Please explore options for the City to obtain authority to set appropriate speed limits or pass a City resolution to oppose the Caltrans speed limit increase.

Best,
Sherry Hao and Chris Carney
South Lake Tahoe
1012
From: Janice Hunt
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit increase Hwy 50 and 89
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 9:32:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Simple! Why?? Track the vehicles currently traveling Hwy 89. No one adheres to the current speed limit. Raising it will only allow motorists to travel faster and endanger the wildlife, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

How does an increase in the speed limit help anyone?
Please explain the logic and reasoning for the increase.

Janice Hunt
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1013
From: Collin Huston
To: PublicComment
Subject: Caltrans Speed Increases
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 7:58:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Council,
I'm writing to express my concern about the Caltrans proposal to increase the speed limits on HWY 50 and 89 through our town, especially the mixed residential/commercial areas of the Y neighborhood. It is my understanding that the council is also opposed to these changes and for that I am grateful.

I have written to the council in the past about the dangerous speed and traffic on the 50 corridor through the Y and any changes to increase the speed limit would only make this situation worse. The Y area is divided by a high speed roadway of 5 lanes (2x each direction plus 1x turn) with no provisions for access to non-vehicular road users. Pedestrian crossings are miles apart and traffic speeds and density prevent safe crossing, increasing speeds here is precisely against the goals of having a walkable, safe, and climate conscious city.

I have been encouraged by the progress in the Y area towards creating safe options for nonvehicular transportation and I hope this can continue. Additionally, I've been happy to hear such a resounding and unanimous opposition to speed increases from residents. I hope this momentum can help the council to further reduce speeds and improve safety and accessibility for non-vehicular road users. Recent legislation (AB-43) has empowered cities to take more control and action to protect their towns and citizens. It is my hope that the city will explore ways to reduce the negative and dangerous impact of high-speed roadways through our neighborhoods.

Thank you for hearing my message and for advocating for the safety and lifestyles of your residents. I'd like to end with notes on some of the changes around the Y area.

1. Class 1 bike path along LTB. As a Y resident, this has been a huge benefit for reducing car trips and having a safe, isolated place to walk and cycle. With maintenance all winter, this pathway provided a buffered and safe way to walk to the grocery store, hardware store, and bus stops. This was especially valuable in times of bad road conditions. Prior to this pathway, the only option was to walk on the roadway.

2. LTB Lane reduction. While initially met with resident frustration, the reduction in travel lanes along the LTB from Raleys to the High School has made a huge impact to quality of life and roadway safety. Car speeds are lower, left turns are safer, and pedestrian access has improved.

3. Julie crosswalk and signals. This is new this year and is one of the most impactful changes to the neighborhood. Crossing LTB has always required jay-walking (or a 1mile detour) and this new crosswalk provides a much needed connection. I am so glad to see it getting used frequently and happy to be able to support local businesses safely.

Thank you for your work on these improvements, they provide nearly daily utility to myself and many others.
1014
From:

PublicComment
Cc: Joseph Irvin; Anush Nejad; David Stevenson
Subject: Public Hearing for California Department of Transportation"s Proposed Speed Limit Increase Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 3:15:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Creegan and Council Members:

Thank you for scheduling a public hearing on the proposal by Caltrans to increase speed limits on State highways in and near the City limits.

II agree with the recommendation of City safety directors that the City Council should oppose raising the speed limits as defined in your staff report, namely, “Suggested Motions:

Pass a Resolution opposing California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) proposed speed limit increase on sections of US 50, US 89, and US 50/89 and directing the City Clerk to prepare and submit the Resolution and Minute Order of the public hearing to Caltrans.”
Increasing speed within the City limits on these designated roads increases the safety risk to pedestrians, residents using bicycles both motorized and person powered, electric powered scooters. The increase of speed is inconsistent with efforts of the City Council and staff to provide a safer environment for residents and visitors. In fact, in my view, placing bicycle lanes along busy highways, that are not physically separated from the roadway, is inviting accidents. I support separated bicycle lanes.

Best wishes and regards,
Respectfully,
David
David Jinkens, MPA
Good Government Advocate
1015
From: Gregg Kendall
To: PublicComment
Subject: Hwy speed limits
Date: Saturday, June 17, 2023 10:38:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As a long-time resident, cyclist, and walker, I urge you not to increase the speed limit on any part of Highways 50 and 89.

Nothing is more important than the safety of our residents and visitors.

Best Always,
Gregg Kendall
1016
From: Kathleen Keough
To: PublicComment
Subject: Do not raise speed limits in South Lake Tahoe
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 9:02:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
As a resident of South Lake Tahoe, I am very opposed to the proposed speed limit increases that will be discussed at the city council meeting on Tuesday, June 19th, 2023. The speed limits in those areas are already quite fast considering they are in town, and increasing the speed limits will endanger cyclists and pedestrians, and likely cause additional car accidents leading to increased levels of traffic. Please do not raise the speed limits.

Instead, the focus should be on making more areas of town accessible without cars, by building more dedicated bike and pedestrian trails. In fact, over the weekend a friend of mine was the victim of a hit and run while they rode in the bike lane on Pioneer Trail. A dedicated bike trail adjacent to the road would have avoided the traumatic incident.

Please keep the priorities on people, not cars.

Kathleen Keough
South Lake Tahoe Resident
1017
From: Kathy Kohberger
To: PublicComment
Subject: Y speed limit already too high
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 9:36:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi
I’m a pedestrian, cyclist and auto driver in South Lake Tahoe. I live in Al Tahoe and often bike to my PO Box on emerald bay road. The speed limit at the Y is not enforced. Folks are driving through at 50 mph and more. On emerald bay road north of 50 there is the post office on the west side, a turn into TJ Maxx shopping center on the east side. Cars are ripping from both sides and making turns in 4 directions with massive amounts of traffic coming from the beach in summer. I’ve seen Zero speed limit enforcement in that area in the 13 years I’ve lived here. I think there should be enforcement of slower speeds and certainly no increase in the speed limit at the Y. Currently it’s not possible as a cyclist to safely cross the street and I don’t feel very comfortable driving either with folks being so aggressive in so many directions. You can barely get into the left turn lane to go to the post office without someone barreling past you on the right at 60 mph.

Highway 50 in town is similar. I never cross unless at a traffic light and go out of my way for that. There aren’t any traffic lights on emerald bay road unless you backtrack to 50.

Thank you,
Kathy Kohberger
1018
From: Nicole Ladd
To: PublicComment
Subject: *Against* Speed Increases on US50 and SR89!
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 2:41:14 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear city officials and fellow residents of South Lake Tahoe, I own a home at 1300 Kyburz ave and it backs backs to SR89. I am against a speed limit increase in all areas of South Lake Tahoe but especially along SR89 North of Kyburz right behind my home. There is never any traffic in this area so I see no reason to increase the speed limit. I would actually argue that we should decrease the speed limit. Please see the following reasons as to why I am against this speed increase:

1. Road Noise: Road noise in this area is already very high from the sound of cars zooming by. There are apartments located right on the highway and homes that back to the highway on Kyburz ave that have to endure the constant noise from this busy highway.

Increasing the speed will further impede on our ability to have peaceful enjoyment of our homes. You can hear the noise with all of my windows shut - to give you an idea of how loud it is.

2. Home Values: Our home values along Kyburz already take a hit due to the current road noise. Increasing the speed limit will further add to this decrease in home values.

3. Promoting Speeding: A speed limit is not a limit anymore, it’s a speed suggestion - with most people going 5-10 MPH over a set speed limit. Right now I observe people driving 45 – 55 MPH along this stretch. Increasing the speed limit to 50 will mean most people will go 50-60 MPH which is close to how fast you can drive on any freeway in CA. Do we really want a freeway in the middle of South Lake Tahoe so close to residential homes?

4. Accessibility to E Street & Kyburz: As it stands now, it is very hard to pull out onto the highway from the far end of Kyburz and E street. Sometimes I sit there for extended periods of time waiting for a safe moment to pull out. 89 is a main route to and from town so that combined with the 45MPH speed limit, makes it not only difficult, but dangerous to get to and from Kyburz and the surrounding neighborhoods. Increasing the speed limit would cause further exasperate these inaccessibility issues.

5. Increased Accidents & Road Rage: There is no middle lane on 89 if making a left from E street or Kyburz which often results in having to pull out in front of other cars already going 45MPH. I have observed multiple accidents and road rage incidents over the years here. Increasing the speed will only make it harder to get out and only lead to more accidents, arguments and god forbid - causalities.

6. Overall Safety: There is a lack of safety associated with increased car speeds. The faster a vehicle is going, the more damage it can cause to other drivers, bicyclists and 1019
pedestrians. There are families with children and pets who live in the apartment complexes on highway 89 and on Kyburz. There is a climbing gym on E street close to the highway that children and families frequent. Children can often be seen walking from the bus stop or walking pets. Increasing the speed in a residential area with kids and pets close by is just not safe. If a child or pet gets out onto the highway, the faster the cars are going the less likely they will be able to stop in time.

I please urge you to not increase the speed in this area or anywhere in South Lake Tahoe.

Allowing cars to move faster will not cause less traffic, it will only encourage speeding, hinder the safety of the surrounding residential areas, increase the likelihood of car accidents and make it tougher on the local communities to navigate to and from their homes. I encourage you to take a drive down Kyburz, park your car close to my home and sit for a while to experience firsthand the already severe road noise. Then when you go to leave, make a left hand turn out onto 89. You will instantly understand why a speed increase is a bad idea. This area is already a freeway.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you,
Nicole Ladd
Concerned Local and Homeowner in SLT
Article reference: http://southtahoenow.com/story/06/02/2023/caltrans-proposing-speedlimit-increases-south-lake-tahoe-public-hearing-june-20

NICOLE LADD
CA Realtor
(408) 712-2439
South Lake Tahoe Area Specialist
Berkshire Hathaway
3045 Harrison Ave
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
CA BRE# 02036045
1020
Jayme Miller
June 16, 2023
City of South Lake Tahoe
2311 Lake Tahoe Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Subject: Opposition to Raising the Speed Limit around Camp Richardson Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed plan of raising the speed limit around Camp Richardson and in South Lake Tahoe.

First and foremost, raising the speed limit would jeopardize the safety of pedestrians, including myself, who frequently cross the crosswalk at Camp Richardson. Currently, it is already a daunting task to cross the road, as motorists often fail to yield to pedestrians, even at the existing speed limit. Increasing the speed limit would only exacerbate this problem.

The proposed change in speed limit would have a detrimental impact on the local wildlife, specifically the bears in the area. South Lake Tahoe is known for its unique ecosystem and diverse wildlife population, including the iconic bears. By raising the speed limit, we would be encroaching upon their habitat and increasing the chances of fatal collisions between vehicles and these magnificent creatures. It is our responsibility to protect and preserve the natural environment, ensuring the coexistence of wildlife and residents.

The safety of our children should be of utmost importance, and raising the speed limit would significantly hinder their ability to navigate the roads safely. As my preteens gain independence and begin exploring the town on their bicycles, it is crucial that drivers reduce their speed to allow them ample time to cross the roads safely. Currently, I find myself constantly worried as my children attempt to cross busy intersections, hoping that drivers will notice them and provide them with a chance to cross. Raising the speed limit would only intensify these concerns, leaving our children vulnerable to accidents and injuries.

Moreover, it is essential to consider the long-term implications of raising the speed limit. As my children approach driving age, their safety behind the wheel will be directly impacted by the prevailing speed limit.

Raising it further would only heighten the risks associated with inexperienced drivers on the road. By maintaining a lower speed limit, we can provide a safer environment for young drivers to learn and gain confidence.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will prioritize the safety and well-being of our children, residents, and wildlife by making the necessary adjustments to the speed limit.

Sincerely,
Jayme Miller
1021
1 P.O. Box 7429
South Lake Tahoe, California 96158
Re: City Council Agenda Item 15
PUBLIC COMMENT submited for the Public Hearing for California Department of Transporta�on's Proposed Speed Limit Increase on Sec�ons of US 50, US 89, and US 50/89 To Whom It May Concern:

While I’m not a traffic engineer, I feel that, as a re�red Senior Environmental Planner, I have valid considera�ons that I hope will influence Caltrans’ decision whether to increase speed limits on Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Emerald Bay Road. I believe that speed limits should not increase based upon the following considera�ons:

1. The increased speed limits being considered values the convenience of drivers more than the lives of people who walk, bike, or scooter for transporta�on or recrea�on. The 85th Percen�le Rule may work for some rural roads, but where speed increases are proposed in this case include a very unique rural road, an urban area, and a complex main street. Speeds should not increase. Se�ng speed limits based upon what speeds people feel like driving minimizes the complexi�es one finds if they look at the environmental se�ng instead of blindly applying the 85th Percen�le Rule.

2. The Caltrans District 3 Ac�ve Transporta�on Plan, or CAT Plan, dated 2022, includes two illustra�ons par�cularly applicable to this speed limit discussion:
1022
2 3. Highway 50 (aka Lake Tahoe Boulevard) through South Lake Tahoe is our “MAIN STREET.” The Caltrans Main Streets Program notes that on Main Streets “segments can have speeds of less than 40 mph and that they serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers.” Increasing speeds in this segment simply flies in the face of Caltrans’ CAT Plan’s mobility, safety, equity and transporta�on goals. It makes a mockery of the Caltrans Toward Zero Deaths goal, which is intended to reflect Caltrans’ commitment to promo�ng safety for all transporta�on modes and abili�es on the State Highways System. To wit, Caltrans states: “Safety is Caltrans’ top priority and a key component of the Active Transportation Plans. At least two pedestrians or cyclists are killed on California's transportation system each day. Between 2010 and 2019, pedestrian fatalities increased more than 40 percent and bicyclist deaths went up more than 60 percent. Reducing the rate and severity of bicycle and pedestrian-involved collisions are critical to Caltrans’ goal of reaching zero fatalities and serious injuries on state highways by 2050.”
Special Considera�on for our MAIN STREET SEGMENT:
• This is a High Intersec�on Density area that requires maximum driver aten�on. • The number of large SUVs and other light trucks on our roadways increases the likelihood that a vehicle vs pedestrian collision will result in death. If you’re walking and get hit by a SUV, you are three �mes more likely to die than if you’re hit by a regular car. • MoneyGeek reports that every 10 mph of increased speed driven doubles pedestrian mortality rates. At lower speeds, the rate is even higher. For example, from 25 to 35 mph, the mortality rate increases from 4.4% to 10.5%.
• We rarely have chain controls through SLT in even the worst snow condi�ons and cars have to poke through center berms and step on it to turn across the highway. • The “lost tourists” who are trying to find des�na�ons on our Main Street o�en make abrupt stops or correc�ons in order to get to their des�na�on, which could be catastrophic at higher speeds.
• The City of South Lake Tahoe partners with electric scooter ride sharing companies in the summer, which when combined with e-bike rentals and other e-bike users, make for a targetrich, vulnerable riding environment on a Main Street with higher speeds, especially when considering the “5 mph over the speed limit is okay” mentality of many drivers.

4. Our RURAL ROAD SEGMENT leads from town to the Pope-Baldwin Recrea�on Area, an intensely popular beach zone. Caltrans should have plenty of user data here that lead to the decommissioning of the crossing light that they had installed at Camp Richardson. If Caltrans had the use of seasonal speed limits in its repertoire, I could poten�ally champion slightly higher speed limits on this road, outside of the City Limits AND outside of the summer season. However, if the busy summer use period must dictate the year-round speed, then slower speeds are lifesaving. In any case, a 10 mph increase to the speed limit, origina�ng from the Y intersec�on, seems insane to me, given the goals of the CAT Plan and the many recrea�on atrac�ons and recrea�on-oriented businesses along this roadway.
1023
3 Special Considera�on for our RURAL ROAD SEGMENT:
• Crossing improvements at Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard intersec�on in South Lake Tahoe are listed in the District 3 CAT Plan as one of the most commented upon bicycle and pedestrian needed improvements.
• The exceedingly popular Pope-Baldwin Bike Path, a designated Na�onal Recrea�on Trail, parallels this Rural Road Segment outside of the City Limit and does not allow the use of motorized vehicles, including e-bike and motorized scooters. In fact, the U.S. Forest Service’s dra� environmental document for the Basin Wide Trails Analysis Project did NOT modify that user restric�on for the trail.
• E-scooter riders have very litle protec�on against impacts with motor vehicles and can suffer serious injuries as a result. Since e-scooters are small, they may be less visible to others sharing the road. Since their use is prohibited on the parallel Class 1 bikeway, they are supposed to be operated along Highway 89. On summer days, vehicles line the Highway 89 roadway for recrea�on parking. A common accident between cars and e-scooters/bicycles happens when someone in a parked car opens their door into the path of an approaching e-scooter or bicycle.

This type of “dooring” accident can result in the rider crashing into the door. Worse yet, if there happens to be �me for riders to take evasive ac�on, “dooring” can result in rider maneuvers that take the scooter or bicycle into the path of cars.
• Caltrans installed bear crossing signs along the highway, which contraindicates increasing roadway speeds along the segment that includes wildlife corridors to Pope Marsh.

5. Our URBAN SEGMENT experiences an unusually high number of people crossing the five-lane road on foot or on bikes, based upon my familiarity with the road segment. In fact, throughout my career I ceased travelling home from town that way a�er work each fall when the daylight started decreasing do to the risks of poten�ally hi�ng someone, or some animal running downslope and crossing the road towards the airport’s meadow. The current 45 mph speed limit is an appropriate transi�on to the most urban intersec�on of South Lake Tahoe and the upcoming Tahoe Valley Greenbelt Project.

Special Considera�on for our URBAN SEGMENT:
• This is a High Intersec�on Density area that requires maximum driver aten�on. • Crossing improvements at Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard intersec�on in South Lake Tahoe are listed in the District 3 CAT Plan as one of the most commented upon bicycle and pedestrian needed improvements.

I’m asking for Caltrans to consider the goals of its own CAT Plan and the culture of our ac�ve lifestyle community rather than priori�zing single occupancy vehicles by increasing roadway speeds. Thank you for your considera�on of my comments.
/s/ Lisa O’Daly
1024
From: Victoria Ortiz
To: PublicComment
Subject: Public comment: Hwy50 speed limits
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 1:06:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear SLT City Council,
I strongly urge you to oppose increasing motor vehicle speeds on highway 50 and SR 89. As an avid bike commuter, it feels incredibly unsafe to have cars fly by me. It also discouraged residents and visitors from leaving their cars behind and traveling with alternate modes of transit.

I love and appreciate the City’s bike infrastructure investments in recent years, which has made it safer and easier for me and others to travel by bike around town. Now, when I teach kids Safe Routes to School approved curriculum I can also share how they can get around without needing to be on busy and dangerous highways.

Instead of raising speed limits, I urge Caltrans to reduce speed limits and continue to implement measures to curb vehicle speeds, calm traffic, and reduce the risk of death and serious injury from traffic crashes.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope you will choose to oppose increasing motor vehicle speeds on highway 50 and SR 89.

Kindest regards,
Victoria Ortiz
1025
From: Kevin Rennie
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed Limits on Highway 50
Date: Saturday, June 17, 2023 3:21:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom it May Concern,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I’m thankful to the City of South Lake Tahoe and Caltrans, along with other Tahoe partners, for investing in infrastructure that is making it safer and easier to get around the south shore by bicycle. I oppose increasing motor vehicle speeds on Highway 50 and SR 89, which effectively serves as South Lake Tahoe's main streets.

Instead of raising speed limits, we urge Caltrans to reduce speed limits and continue to implement measures to curb vehicle speeds, calm traffic, and reduce the risk of death and serious injury from traffic crashes.

I thank the City for its leadership on this important safety issue, and encourage the City to pass its resolution opposing the speed limit increase. In addition to advocating the community’s concerns to Caltrans, we encourage the City to explore all options under state law for taking over the authority to set speeds on our community roadways should Caltrans not reconsider its proposal. Adopting changes to the Highway 50 and SR 89 roadways to reduce speeds and improve safety would protect community members and visitors in our community, would be a policy choice more consistent with the Caltrans Complete Streets and Caltrans Main Street policies, and would build on the value of the bicycle and pedestrian investments the City has made to date and continues to prioritize.

Thank you,
Kevin Rennie
Visitor of Tahoe from Bay Area
Sent from my iPhone
1026
From: Tina Retzer
To: PublicComment
Subject: Increasing speed on 89 and 50
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:27:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Increasing the speed limit would put more of our wildlife in danger including our bears. There is absolutely no positive reason to increase the speed limit.

Sent from my iPhone
1027
From: John Ruiz
To: PublicComment
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 8:58:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honestly it starts with the police department when they got $65,000 Grant in November to patrol the streets the police department don't like to patrol the streets and they tell me as a public that it's not the job to patrol the streets I live off of Glenwood I've been here 9 years on the street and I've been ran into my property twice but in 9 years there's been 20 accidents down this road between fairway I mean off of Glenwood so how's the police department explain that when you get a 65,000 Grant to patrol the streets you can't pick and choose when you want to patrol the streets you're wasting our tax paying money so to raise the speed limit is ridiculous so the faster they go the cost won't come out anyways they say it's not their jobs that patrol the streets but ask him where's that 65,000 when they got in November last year a concerned citizen and a local I've been here 36 years wind's enough and the police department needs to be accountable for their action to patrol our streets and make it safe no matter who's driving or walking what are you waiting for a death that should be happening at all the police department don't have no pride in our lovely town there's no interaction with the community appreciation with the community they don't interact with our community. So I think it's wrong to raise the speed limit when the promise still getting worse every year I have facts and statistics.
1028
From: Schaefer, Thomas G
To: PublicComment
Subject: Highway speed limits through town
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:39:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of South Lake Tahoe and Caltrans...

I write this email to express my concern regarding the proposed speed limit increases on the highways here in the South Tahoe area. It is Not a good idea. The speed limits should be kept as they are. Increasing the speed limit only makes it that much harder and disruptive for one to slow down to turn into a business or parking lot. There are too many bicycles and pedestrians during the summer and fall, and the snow and ice in the winter and spring make slowing and/or stopping that much more dangerous.

The current speed limits are adequate. As it is people fudge over the speed limits. If the speed limits are increased they're just going to fudge that much more over the new limits.

Safety is the most important factor, and traffic would gain very little time with the increased speed limits and yet the danger factor would increase significantly. Please keep the speed limits as they are.

Sincerely,
Tom Schaefer
GIS Instructor
Lake Tahoe Community College
A pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity;
An optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty
1029
From: Echo Tahoe
To: PublicComment
Subject: No change to highway speeds thru town
Date: Saturday, June 17, 2023 10:41:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of South Lake Tahoe…
It is NOT a good idea to increase the speed limits on any of the major roads in the city of South Lake Tahoe.

There is simply too much traffic, too many pedestrians and cyclists to safely change the speed limits. And that doesn’t even include snow and ice conditions during winter time, which would make the situation even worse! Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tom Schaefer
South Lake Tahoe
Sent from my iPhone
1030
Hello,
My comments are specific to the Caltrans’ proposal to increase the speed limits for the stretch of SR 89 from the Y to Pope Beach (City and County jurisdiction) and Camp Richardson to Cathedral Road (County jurisdiction).

After reading the materials included in the City Council packet I have come to the conclusion that Caltrans engineers are choosing to only consider a portion of the planning and engineering information they could potentially consider according to the language of California Vehicle Code Section 627, which specifically allows Caltrans to consider residential and business density as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and identify conditions not readily apparent to a motorist when preparing Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) results. 2020 SR 89 Corridor Management Plan
It also appears that Caltrans engineering staff are not communicating to Caltrans planning staff.

Caltrans is a participatory agency in the 2020 SR 89 Corridor Management Plan (https://www.trpa.gov/rtp/sr-89-recreation-corridor-management-plan/) which specifically aims to reduce traffic congestion and facilitate multi-model transportation along this stretch of SR 89 with more parking areas and increased pedestrian and bicycle use. One of the six goals of the Plan is to: “Advance Safety. Enhance facilities and utilize management strategies that reduce the potential for traffic incidents and enhance emergency access and evacuation routes.” The 2020 SR 89 Corridor Management Plan states that “Visitor demand during peak season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) exceeds infrastructure and staffing/operational capacity at recreation destinations. During the winter, parking areas are closed forcing visitors to park along the roadside to access back-country skiing and to site-see.” The E&TS results and the proposed 10 mph increase in the speed limit for this road segment does not take into consideration this finding of the Corridor Management Plan.

One of the Corridor Recommendations includes the development of a recreation zone speed limit for peak season.

The Corridor Management Plan identifies segments of roadway for planning purposes one of which is called the POPE TO BALDWIN SEGMENT. The Management Plan identifies the demand for beach access and high levels of pedestrian activity along the highway as key issues for the POPE TO BALDWIN SEGMENT.

List of Key Issues Addressed in the Plan
• Item 2 | Pedestrians in Highway
• Item 5 | Motorists Congest Roads when Searching for Parking • Item 12 | High Traffic Speeds Near High Volumes of Pedestrians • Item 22 | Roadway is a Barrier for Wildlife Movement
On page 55 of the Congestion Management Plan Item 12 is presented:
“ITEM 12 | HIGH TRAFFIC SPEEDS NEAR HIGH VOLUMES OF PEDESTRIANS Motorists travel through high use recreation areas at high travel speeds, even during peak summer periods.
1031

STRATEGIES
Implement a recreation corridor speed limit that allows for reducing the speed limit around recreation sites during the summer and other peak recreation use days.

SUCCESS MEASUREMENT
Implementation of recreation zone speed limit.”
None of this information in the 2020 Corridor Management Plan is captured in the E&TS results.

Caltrans should revise the E&TS to include this important planning information which they help develop as a partner agency to the Management Plan. Additionally, the 85th percentile methodology Caltrans is relying upon to make the recommendation to increase speed limits is in direct conflict with the policies and actions outlined in the Corridor Management Plan. The Management Plan provides ample information on congested conditions, conflicts between people trying to park along the road way and traffic, and the many pedestrian and bicyclists on the roadway.

SR 89 Segment From the Y to Pope Beach:

A review of the E&TS results provided by Caltrans showed that Caltrans has characterized the land uses along SR 89 from the Y to the City limit as “mostly commercial” and it fails to mention that the dominate land use along the streets connecting to SR 89 is residential. We use 13th or 15th to get in and out of our neighborhood and during traffic times it is very challenging to turn on to SR 89 safely at the current posted 35 mph. Increasing the speed limit by 10 miles per hour will make turns out of the neighborhood more challenging and less safe. There are also numerous pedestrians and bicyclists trying to cross this stretch of highway. California Vehicle Code Section 627 allows Caltrans to consider residential and business density as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety, but the E&TS documentation fails to mention any of these traffic conditions.

The current speed limit set at 35 mph factors in all these roadway conditions. COVID has resulted in many new day users of the Tahoe Basin unfamiliar with the area and driving hazards.

Drivers are driving faster while parking, pedestrian, and bicycle use along SR 89 has increased.

It doesn’t make any sense for Caltrans to ignore the goals, policies, and action plans of the 2020 SR 89 Corridor Management Plan and to ignore the heavy pedestrian and bicycle use along this stretch of road. The language of California Vehicle Code Section 627 allows Caltrans to consider residential and business density as well as pedestrian and bicyclist safety and they are choosing not to include any information on these road conditions in their documentation.

Basing their proposal only on the 85th percentile methodology will result in more hazardous conditions for both motorists and multi-model users of the highway.

The 85th percentile methodology is based on the foundation that the majority of drivers comply with the basic speed law and that motorists will go reasonable and prudent speeds. However, percentile-based speed limit methods fail to keep people safe as they set a permanently moving target based on current human behavior. Increasing the speed limit based on the 85th percentile speed leads to drivers increasing their speed on the road, which would then lead to an even higher 85th percentile speed, and this would continue in an upward cycle. The methodology also ensures speed limits are much higher than the average, leaving only the top 15 percent of vehicle speeds out of the calculations. The difference between the 85th percentile and the 50th 1032
percentile is quite apparent. Road alignment, parking practices, bicycle and pedestrian activity, and overall road safety should be prioritized over whatever speed California drivers desire to go.

I concur with the staff report findings and urge the City Council to follow the staff report recommendations which states there are factors, plus the crash history in the corridor, which have not been fully considered with the 2023 E&TS, which must be accounted for, before Caltrans makes any changes to the speed limits. Furthermore, staff recommends that Caltrans begins a corridor study, in coordination with the City, to implement effective traffic calming and non-vehicular mobility measures along US 50 and US 89, which is consistent with the City's 2023-2028 Strategic Plan.

I urge the City to continue to oppose this Caltrans proposed speed limit increase and to coordinate with the County, the school district, regional planning agencies, and other community groups to oppose any increase in the existing speed limit from the Y to Cathedral Road.

Barbara Beard
Resident of Gardner Mountain
1033
From: Lauren Scott
To: PublicComment
Subject: Public Comment for June 20, 2023 (Caltrans Speed Limits) Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 8:57:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am writing in opposition to the proposed speed limit increases by Caltrans, specifically speed increases considered on SR89. Both the methodology used, and the Engineering & Traffic Study (E&TS) prepared by Caltrans fail to address all applicable provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 627 or follow the 2020 California Manual for Setting Speeds published by Caltrans. At the minimum, the E&TS should be revised to include relevant information about road conditions that Section 627 asks Caltrans to consider when setting speed limits.

The 85th percentile methodology is based on the foundation that the majority of drivers comply with the basic speed law and that motorists will go reasonable and prudent speeds.

However, percentile-based speed limit methods fail to keep people safe as they set a permanently moving target based on current human behavior. Increasing the speed limit based on the 85th percentile speed leads to drivers increasing their speed on the road, which would then lead to an even higher 85th percentile speed, and this would continue in an upward cycle.

The methodology also ensures speed limits are much higher than the average, leaving only the top 15 percent of vehicle speeds out of the calculations. The difference between the 85th percentile and the 50th percentile is quite apparent. Road alignment, parking practices, adjacent land uses, bicycle and pedestrian activity, and overall road safety should be prioritized over whatever speed California drivers desire to go.

Roadside conditions (required to be identified in an E&TS by California Vehicle Code 627) are not adequately addressed in the E&TS. The sample justification memo included in Appendix B.8 of the California Manual for Setting Speeds prepared by Caltrans is much more detailed and transparent than the one provided to the City of South Lake Tahoe by Caltrans.

There are several factors not readily apparent to the driver or that should have been considered in the justification for increasing the speed limit that Caltrans did not consider.

Collision history. The Manual for Setting Speeds (page 36) states that higher than average collision rates need investigation to determine if they are related to the posted speed. The collision rates for this stretch of SR 89 are higher than average but no additional analysis or reasoning is included in the E&TS. The higher-than-average collision history is also not readily apparent to a driver on this road.

Intersection spacing offsets. On this stretch of SR 89 it’s rare for perpendicular streets to align (e.g., 10th, 15th) or connect (7th, 8th, 11th) which are both roadside conditions not readily apparent to drivers and not addressed in the E&TS.

Safe stopping sight distance. SR 89 has several curves/turns exiting City Limits. For 35 mph a safe stopping sight distance of 250 feet is recommended and for 45 mph that increases to 360 feet. This distance does not always exist on SR 89 due to the roadway curvature.

Shoulder condition. Road shoulders are narrow and often contain parked cars or 1034
bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These conditions are not always readily apparent to drivers.

Land uses. The Strip Map classifies SR 89 within City limits as “Commercial”. This seems to ignore the many residential uses just off SR 89 for which this road is their only ingress/egress and which is not readily apparent to the driver. In addition to the many local streets that connect to SR 89, there are many driveways for housing developments, hotels, and restaurants that are not addressed in the E&TS and its conclusions.

Pedestrian and bicycle safety. The distance between the designated crosswalk at the Y to the designated crosswalk at Camp Richardson is roughly 2.2 miles. Pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to cross in this stretch of 89 which not only includes recreation trails but homes and businesses, are currently forced to wait for breaks in traffic or for drivers to stop and let them cross. Sidewalks along SR 89 exist within City limits but end outside of City jurisdiction. All types of pedestrians including students and seniors walk along and must cross SR 89 with the City to get to their various destinations. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published “Safety Study: Reducing Speed-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles” in 2017. In the report, the NTSB explained that the likelihood of fatality for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle increases with vehicle speed: 5 percent of pedestrians struck by vehicles at 20 mph are fatally injured, and this likelihood increases to 45 percent at 30 mph and to 85 percent at 40 mph. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is not addressed at all in the E&TS but should be considered according to CVC Section 627 as well as Caltrans’ own manual.

A speed limit increase is also incompatible with other planning efforts in the area, most notably the SR 89 Corridor Management Plan which Caltrans is a partner agency on, which emphasizes safety, the reduction of traffic incidents, and the construction of more pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. There are ongoing projects along SR 89 to construct more off-street bicycle & pedestrian trails and connections to popular recreation sites. Encouraging more nonmotorized traffic and promoting safety while increasing speed limits and providing no additional non-motorized crossings are at odds with each other.

It’s clear that Caltrans will not be taking into account the public opposition to the proposal, the effects on wildlife, or the fact that higher car speeds make roads less safe. I urge the City Council to direct staff to submit additional comments to Caltrans that target the flaws of the methodology and errors in Caltrans assessment based on the California Vehicle Code and Caltrans’ own manual and to elevate this discussion within Caltrans and with elected officials. I also encourage the City to communicate with El Dorado County, TRPA, regional agencies, and other stakeholders to oppose this proposal.

Thank you,
Lauren Scott
1035
June 16, 2023
Mary Bokova
California Department of Transporta�on
District 3 – Department of Safety
Marysville, CA 95901
Dear Ms. Bokova,
TRPA is proud of the partnership between our agencies. Caltrans has contributed more to the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program than any other single state agency in the Tahoe Basin. We appreciate this extraordinary commitment to preserving the Tahoe environment.

Given our important partnership in protec�ng the lake and our communi�es, we must raise concerns about the proposed speed increase(s) along U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 89 detailed in Caltrans’ Speed Survey Correspondence, sent to Joe Irvin, the City Manager of the City of South Lake Tahoe, dated May 10, 2023. We request Caltrans not only consider retaining current speeds, but for the reasons stated below, consider reducing speeds further.

As the Metropolitan Planning Organiza�on (MPO) for the Tahoe Region, we find that this proposi�on does not align with the goals and policies established in the Regional Transporta�on Plan (RTP). More specifically, TRPA strives to increase safety and security for all users of Tahoe’s transporta�on system, further outlined in the 2019 Lake Tahoe Region Safety Strategy and 2018 Linking Tahoe: Ac�ve Transporta�on Plan. Current planning efforts, TRPA’s Vision Zero Safety Strategy and Ac�ve Transporta�on Plan update and the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Vision Zero Ac�on Plan seek to further this safety goal with a focus on the federally adopted Safe System Approach and protec�ng the most vulnerable road users. A key principle of the Safe System Approach, that Caltrans has embraced as well, is managing the kine�c energy transferred among road users, which means maintaining an appropriate speed limit for all road users. A speed limit increase could have a significant impact on the severity of pedestrian and bicyclist injuries, which would conflict with TRPA’s and the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Vision Zero goals.

Ini�al data analysis has quan�fied all sec�ons of U.S. 50 with proposed increases to have a Level of Traffic Stress of four for bicyclists, the most stressful designa�on. The analysis also iden�fied this segment as being a part of the High Injury Network. Transporta�on planning data highlight that raising the speed limit along these corridors will not only increase or maintain the high levels of stress, but will con�nue to present a condi�on of high stress that will discourage an even higher number people from walking or biking in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

The proposed speed increases appear to be inconsistent with Caltrans' targets, plans, and projects. The federally mandated Safety Performance Management Final Rule establishes 1036
targeted reduc�ons in fatali�es and injuries that the state and MPOs must make significant progress towards mee�ng. The speed limit increase will hinder our ability as the MPO to meet these safety targets. Caltrans’ 2020-24 Strategic Highway Safety Plan seeks to reach zero fatali�es and serious injuries by 2050 and fund new transporta�on projects to include “complete street” features that provide safe and accessible op�ons for people walking, biking, and taking transit.

These are Caltrans’ stated goals, while na�onal, state, regional, and local data and planning ini�a�ves detail that increased vehicle speeds are counter to ini�a�ves to support ac�ve transporta�on.

TRPA, ac�ng as the MPO, does not support any increase in vehicle speed limits throughout the Tahoe Basin, two specific loca�ons that the speed survey iden�fies as appropriate speed increases are par�cularly concerning. First, the surveyed segment of State Route 89 from the U.S. 50/89 intersec�on to Cathedral Road. The primary collision factors list excessive speed as the primary cause for seven crashes between 2013 and 2020. Second, the surveyed segment of U.S. 50 from the 50/89 intersec�on, east to the north side of Blue Lake Ave. Caltrans is implemen�ng a safety project along this segment of U.S. 50 this year, the “U.S. 50 South Lake Tahoe Ligh�ng and Safety Project.” The project’s purpose is to “…improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety…by installing additional intersection and mid-block lighting, pedestrian signals and advisory signs. The project also proposes to paint the Class II bike lanes green at driveway areas and bike lane extensions to improve visibility.” The project website jus�fies the need for these safety improvements to “reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions with vehicles along this stretch of the Highway 50 corridor. There were 41 reported collisions, including six fatalities, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019”.

Furthermore, for this segment of U.S. 50 east of the 50/89 intersec�on, the speed survey states that the actual accident rate is 1.64 �mes the statewide average rate. FHWA guidance states that 50th percen�le speeds should be considered where there is both a high frequency of crashes and high bicycle and pedestrian volumes – both of which cons�tute a condi�on that is not readily apparent to drivers. In short, from a data- oriented, Vision Zero/Safe Systems approach, increasing speeds along these corridors and elsewhere in Tahoe are counter to transporta�on safety goals of Caltrans, TRPA, and the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Another significant factor is that within the City of South Lake Tahoe, and much of the Tahoe Basin, our main streets are also Caltrans’ state highways. FHWA recommends when se�ng a speed limit, agencies should consider a broad range of factors such as pedestrian and bicyclist ac�vity, crash history, land use context, intersec�on spacing, driveway density, roadway geometry, roadside condi�ons, roadway func�onal classifica�on, traffic volume, and observed speeds.

Tahoe’s vibrant commercial and mixed-use/residen�al town centers are the state’s highway network, with o�en�mes conflic�ng opera�onal uses. The state highway network in Tahoe o�en conflicts with a high number of driveways, higher pedestrian and bicycle volumes, and many businesses and residences, contribu�ng to a condi�on that is not readily apparent to drivers. It is this non-apparent condi�on omited in the speed zone jus�fica�on that warrants at a minimum the reten�on of exis�ng speed limits.

Given that our adopted plans and goals call for a right-sized transporta�on network that accommodates a main street feel and encourages walking, biking, and transit, a reduc�on in speed in this zone is the correct approach. The safety, economic, and environmental benefits would be substan�al to the state, the City of South Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe Region. 1037
It is for these data-driven reasons that the TRPA asks Caltrans to consider retaining speed limits and working towards reducing speed limits along the U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 89 corridors, adhering to the state’s goals of reducing fatali�es and serious injuries and suppor�ng ac�ve transporta�on projects that encourage safe walking, biking, and rolling for all.

Sincerely,
Julie W. Regan
Execu�ve Director
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
CC: Anush Nejad, City of South Lake Tahoe Public Works Director City of South Lake Tahoe Council Members
Amarjeet Benipal, Caltrans District 3 Northern Region Director Jason Huang, PE Caltrans Traffic Opera�ons Engineer
Fernando Rivera, Chief Traffic Safety Branch
Donaldo Palaroan, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer County of El Dorado 1038
From: Bonnie Turnbull
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limits on 50
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2023 8:04:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Manager Joe Irvin and Council Members Cristi Creegan, Cody Bass, John Friedrich, Tamara Wallace, and Scott Robbins,
I am sorry to hear that increasing the speed limit on 50 and 89 is under consideration. I suspect it is not currently under your jurisdiction, however, please explore the options for us if it is not.

I am concerned for two main reasons.

1. Upon my first visit to South Lake, I felt intense disappointment that the main road--what I expected to be the heart and soul of the town--felt like a frenzied commercial zone and not friendly and welcoming. I grew up in a small town, and it was the opposite of what I had expected to experience as a visitor to the mountains. This strip continues to undermine the attractive hometown feel--the image of a bikeable, walkable town--that we are working so hard to establish for ourselves and our visitors.

2. I am bike commuter. I worry about all of us using the roads who are not protected by a metal shell. It appears to me that faster speeds encourage running traffic lights and generally less civility in traffic—as well as the greater likelihood of me dying if I am struck. I applaud the city efforts to calm and beautify streets in our neighborhoods and around our schools.

Though our bike path system is impressive, and the result of years of effort by many, there are times when I am late for work and 50 is the fastest and most direct path way to my destination.

Other days, I am crossing from one neighborhood to another. Somedays, the bike path unusable because it is deeply flooded or icy, At these times, I am biking the highway biking in the narrow band alongside the traffic. I worry, “Will this next driver swerve into the bike lane? Or hurriedly take a right not noticing I am there?”. But it is not just me. I worry, for examples, about our ski workers I walking the roadway to get to a bus stop in the early darkness when the sidewalks are not cleared, and about our visitors crossing from hotel to coffee shop.

Please work with Caltrans to maintain or decrease the speed limit.

Sincerely,
Bonnie Turnbull
1039
From: Doug Vacek
To: PublicComment
Subject: raising the speed limit on hwy 50
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 3:14:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Are you kidding me???
What's the hurry!
Enjoy the area's beauty!!
Does public safety mean absolutely nothing...???
I love biking in that area, but I want it to be a safe excursion!!! Doug Vacek
1040
From: Robert Velasquez
To: PublicComment
Subject: Speed limit increase
Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 12:15:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As a resident of south lake tahoe please do not raise the speed limit please do not raise the speed limit. There is already frequent speeding in the area that makes the Y very scary, this will likely only mean that people will push the speed event further! As a new parent, I want my child to love the area and feel confident and comfortable walking and biking around the local neighborhood, I don’t see how this helps build a local community. 1041
From: Alan Di Vittorio
To: PublicComment
Subject: Hwy 50 speed limit increase proposal
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 7:08:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I think it is a bad idea to increase the speed limit anywhere in the south tahoe area. In fact, the speed limit should be decreased, if anything.

People already drive too fast and hit animals. Increasing the speed limit will only cause people to drive faster, thereby increasing the risk to animals and people (both in and out of cars).

I rarely see anyone using the bike lanes along hwy 50, and this is likely because it is very scary to do so (the cars are driving too fast and too close); I have tried it.

Any “time saved” by driving faster is usually mythical, as in the best of cases is shaves less than a minute off an average drive, and usually doesn’t change anything due to stop lights, stop signs, people crossings (particularly near camp richardson), and other traffic.

Interestingly enough, there is a proposal to reduce the speed limit on the east side of the lake and create a turning lane, all to increase safety and reduce accidents. In light of this proposal, increasing speeds limits has the potential to reduce safety, which is not desirable on our busy streets.

Thank you,
Alan
1042
From: Kyle Aster (Neath)
To: PublicComment
Subject: Public Comment on Item 15 on the June 20th, 2023 Agenda (Caltrans Speed Increase) Date: Monday, June 19, 2023 10:11:26 AM
Attachments: annual-pedestrian-deaths-by-roadway-ownership-1.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Note: A sharable version of this comment has been published on my website: https://warpspire.com/southlake/caltrans-speed-increase I'm writing in to comment on Item 15 on the June 20th, 2023 Agenda — Caltrans' suggestion to increase the speed limit along the Highway 50/89 corridor in South Lake Tahoe.

I am a long time resident of Gardner Mountain. I spend almost every day driving, biking, and walking along this corridor. I also own commercial property at the Y (Runnels), and am currently in the process of redeveloping it because I believe the Y holds tremendous potential for South Lake Tahoe. I strongly oppose this increase and argue for a reduction from the current speed limits.

I have reviewed the Caltrans reports for raising the speed limit, and found that they rely on two metrics for justification: accident rate relative to state average (ACC/VM), and 85th percentile actual speed of vehicle travel. Absent from these reports is the most important metric: level of traffic stress (LTS). I believe without a study utilizing LTS, this report is inadequate for changes within South Lake Tahoe. LTS is the most important metric for how streets affect towns — steering the vibrancy of businesses and quality of life for residents. A low level of traffic stress means people spend more time out of their cars, visit more shops, spend more time in public spaces, and develop stronger relationships with their neighbors.

These are all things I want to see for South Lake Tahoe.

The "Y" area in South Lake Tahoe has gone through dramatic changes over the past decade.

It's almost unrecognizable from 2010 in the best way possible. It's been nicknamed "the local's downtown" for good reason — there are dozens of stores, restaurants, and a constant stream of community events all within the few blocks surrounding the intersection. People walk, bike, drive, one-wheel, scooter, visit friends, commute to school, and patronize businesses every day along these streets. The adjoining neighborhood Gardner Mountain is home to some of the highest percentage of full-time residents in all of South Lake Tahoe. Children from the High School cross 50 and 89 every day. This is a place where people live. Highway 50/89 is not a thoroughfare here — it is a main street.

Increasing the amount of vehicle stress goes against every success the Y has enjoyed in recent years. It is the number one enemy of creating a downtown. The rate of pedestrian and cyclist deaths for every 5mph increase over 25mph is well documented and need not be revisited. But I do think it is worth noting that state-owned roads inside of city limits have had a poor safety record as of late. The NHTSA data shows that since 2015 state-owned (Caltrans) roadways have dramatically increased their share of traffic deaths. 1043
https://data.bikeleague.org/nhtsa-data-bonus-roadway-ownership-data-shows-state-ownedroads-have-increasing-share-of-traffic-deaths/ I would like to see all roads — including those owned by Caltrans — within the city limits reduced to 25mph and traffic calming measures implemented to reduce actual speed traveled. I believe this is vital to South Lake's future if we wish to have a true "downtown" feeling to our city and reduce traffic stress for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike.

Additionally, increased speeds will not solve traffic delays. A 45mph speed limit along 89 will not get you to Emerald Bay faster when cars are traveling at 5mph along Camp Richardson one mile down the road. But it might increase the road rage a visitor experiences due to such a dramatic slowdown. Traffic delays in South Lake Tahoe are caused by congestion, snow removal operations, and road work — all things made safer by a lower speed limit.

I urge Caltrans and the city to visit similar mountain towns with highways cutting through them like Durango, CO and see how the reduction in speed limits has benefitted businesses, residents, and made the town extremely pleasant to visit — all through LTS based approaches.

This report on Durango's Road Diets serves as a good example of a LTS approach to traffic design: https://www.flydurango.com/DocumentCenter/View/7932/College-and-8th-TrafficStudy?bidId= 1044
ACC/VM and 85th percentile speed measures are adequate metrics for empty stretches of thoroughfare highway. They are inadequate for roadways inside of cities, and they are inadequate for South Lake Tahoe.

Kyle Aster
1045
From: Deborah Beane
To: Sue Blankenship
Subject: Proposed speed limit increases
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 12:09:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Based on the editorial in South Tahoe Now today, I’d like to voice my concerns over increased speed limits in the areas mentioned.

I live near, and regularly drive through, all segments outlined in the article, and I agree that they should not have a higher speed limit.

Thank you!
Debbie Beane
1046
From: M & M Bird
To: PublicComment
Subject: Fwd: Support Safe Streets, Oppose Higher Speeds on 50 Date: Saturday, June 17, 2023 12:33:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As offered below, higher speeds increase the likelihood of serious injury to everyone from our wildlife to pedestrians, bikers, scooter riders and other autos.

Our town is filled with tourists unfamiliar with our wildlife, road conditions and sightseeing options. As a result they are prone to making unexpected alterations to their original intensions; resulting in unexpected stopping, turning, lane changing and even parking in the actual roadway.

Distracted drivers are unsafe drivers. Increasing the speed limits based on a statewide "formula" will speed up encountering distractions and will be both dangerous and impractical in a unique tourist oriented community like South Lake Tahoe not to mention in complete contradiction to the city's stated intention to create more "traffic calming" travel lanes. https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/city-council-approves-traffic-calming-pilot-programland-exchange/ Further, caltrans also recognizes the need for reducing vehicle speed:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/policy
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/memo-trafficclaming-guidance-1-28-22-a11y.pdf Please, we need to calm our traffic not increase frustration, road rage, and serious accidents by raising the speed limits.

Thank you
Melissa Bird
Resident since 1979
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition <[email protected]> Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 10:28
Subject: Support Safe Streets, Oppose Higher Speeds on 50 To: <[email protected]>
1047
From: Rebecca
To: Sue Blankenship; Joseph Irvin
Cc:

Subject: Community Mobility Opposes Speed Limit Increase on 50 Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 12:54:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council and stafff
Hope it is not too late but on behalf of the Community Mobility Work Group, I am writing to oppose the proposed increase in the speed limit along US50 through town.

We have seen a strong increase in bikers and also pedestrians in recent years. Increasing the speed limit is known to cause more fatalities in motor/ped or motor/bike collisions. We strongly oppose any increase in the speed limits along US50 for this reason as we want to encourage even more walking and bike ridership and this threatens that.

Please keep our town safe and keep the speed limit as it is.

Thank you
Rebecca Bryson
Community Mobility CoChair
Sent from my iPhone
1048
From: Lauretta Ross
To: PublicComment
Subject: Caltrans Proposal to increase speed limit
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:21:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members,
The Caltrans proposal to increase the speed limit on parts of Highways 50 and 89 is ludicrous. Over the years, local residents have complained about being cut off on our main thoroughfares by speeding drivers, especially during the summer months. Why compromise the safety of locals and visitors alike by promoting a "freeway mentality".

Thank you for considering this request to keep the speed limit the same, or even consider lowering the speed limit in areas of the highway that have encountered the most accidents.

L. Ross
1049
From: Joseph Irvin
To: Sue Blankenship; Heather Stroud
Subject: FW: US 50/89 Proposed Speed Limit Update
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 9:06:22 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
Here you go.

Joseph D. Irvin, ICMA-CM
City Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
[email protected]
(530) 542-6043
www.cityofslt.us
From: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 8:39 AM
To: Anush Nejad <[email protected]>; Heather Stroud <[email protected]>; David Stevenson <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: US 50/89 Proposed Speed Limit Update
Mayor and Council Members,
While this is good news, we will still keep full pressure on, and the staff recommendation remains the same for Agenda Item #15.

Respectfully,
Joseph D. Irvin, ICMA-CM
City Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
[email protected]
(530) 542-6043
1050
www.cityofslt.us
From: Anush Nejad <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 8:35 AM
To: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Heather Stroud <[email protected]>; David Stevenson <[email protected]>
Cc: Cody Bass <[email protected]>; John Friedrich <[email protected]>; Cristi Creegan <[email protected]>; Tamara Wallace <[email protected]>; Scott Robbins <[email protected]>
Subject: US 50/89 Proposed Speed Limit Update
Dear Mayor and members of the City Council
Today, I received a phone call from the Caltrans survey team. Mr. Fernando Rivera with Caltrans indicated that they would delay changing any speed limits on US 50 from Y to the Stateline by at least two years, so that they can observe the impact of the US 50 Safety Project on prevailing speeds. However, he indicated that they plan to move forward with the increase in speed limits along 89 from Y to city limits.

Anush A. Nejad, P.E., T.E.

Director of Public Works
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Office: (530) 542-6031
Mobile: (530) 208-8304
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
1051
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 20, 2023
Agenda Item #: 16
Agenda Item: South Tahoe Refuse Delinquent Fees Report
Executive Summary: All properties within the City of South Lake Tahoe limits are required to pay refuse collection service fees. Fees that remain unpaid for 180 days after billing may be collected by South Tahoe Refuse pursuant to City Code 4.150.370. Properties for which fees are not paid will have a lien recorded on the property.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution confirming the Final Delinquent Fees Report and directing the Finance Department to send a certified copy of the Report to the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller to add the delinquent amounts to the county property tax rolls for collection.

Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Assistant Planner Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Assistant Planner Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - South Tahoe Refuse.docx
02-Resolution - South Tahoe Refuse Delinquent Fees Report.docx 03 - South Tahoe Refuse Delinquent List
04 - PC Resolution 2023-007 South Tahoe Refuse Del. Fee.pdf 05 - Proof of Publication
1052
Report to City Council June 20, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 20, 2023
Title: South Tahoe Refuse Delinquent Refuse Fees Report Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Assistant Planner Background: City Code Chapter 4.150 includes City regulations on refuse and garbage.

Chapter 4.150.300 specifies the liability for residential or commercial property owners and/or occupants to pay for refuse services made available to the premises, regardless of the actual use of the refuse collection services. All properties within the City limits are subject to mandatory payment of collection fees.

Mandatory collection fees, authorized by City Code Section 4.150.340, which remain unpaid for a period of 180 days, may be collected by South Tahoe Refuse pursuant to City Code Section

4.150.370 (see Attachment 02). City Code Section 4.150.370 requires South Tahoe Refuse to prepare a delinquent fees report (Attachment 03), and for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to hear any objections or protests of landowners liable for delinquent fees. The Commission may make such revisions or corrections to the report as is deemed just, and thereafter the report shall be forwarded to the City Council for confirmation.

The delinquent fees set forth in the report constitute a special assessment against the respective parcels of land and are a lien of the property for such delinquent fees. Once the City Council confirms, a certified copy of the report is filed with The El Dorado County Auditor and County Recorder’s office on or before August 1, 2023.

Issue and Discussion: On April 10, 2023, all delinquent account property owners on the report were mailed certified letters and a copy of the public notice indicating the time and place of the Planning Commission hearing. On April 28, 2023, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, a public notice indicating the time and place of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, as well as for the City Council hearing to follow on June 20, 2023.

Properties for which the delinquent amount is paid during this period shall be removed from the list. Report items that are highlighted represent fees that were paid by check and are awaiting clearance, after which they will be removed from the report. 1053
Report to City Council June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 2
On May 16, 2023, Planning Commission held a public hearing at which property owners could make protests or objections to the report; none were made. Planning Commission approved the report and recommended City Council approve and file the report.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative activities).

Financial Implications: There are no adverse financial impacts to the City from this action. An increase in South Tahoe Refuse fee collections should occur, which will result in a minor increase in the franchise fees paid to the City.

Policy Implications: The adoption of the Final Deliquent Fees Report conforms to City Code Section 4.150.370.
1054
Resolution 2023-XX June 20, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 20, 2023
Confirming the South Tahoe Refuse Final Delinquent Fees Report

B. South Lake Tahoe City Code Section 4.150.370 makes delinquent refuse fees civil debts owed to the City and subject to collection.

C. Government Code Section 25831 authorizes collection of delinquent solid waste (refuse) fees by the County and Government Code Section 38790.1 states “any city collecting garbage fees or charges may collect delinquent fees or charges in the manner provided in Section 25831 for counties”.

D. Pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code Section 4.150.370, South Tahoe Refuse has prepared a Final Delinquent Fees Report of fees unpaid for 180 days or more.

E. South Tahoe Refuse on April 10, 2023, mailed certified letters to individuals on the report notifying them of the lien process, and notifying them of the public hearings to consider objections and protests.

F. On April 28, 2023, a public notice was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune providing notice that the Planning Commission would consider the delinquent fees report at their regular scheduled meeting on May 16, 2023, and the City Council would be considering the Delinquent Fees Report at their regular scheduled meeting on June 20, 2023.

G. On May 16, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to hear objections or protests of landowners liable for delinquent fees. 1055
Resolution 2023-XX June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 2

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Confirm the Final Delinquent Fees Report (Attachment 03) and direct the Finance Department to send a Certified Copy of the Report to the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller to add the delinquent amounts to the county property tax rolls for collection.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on June 20, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenshiop, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1056
Cuttoff Date Acct# Service Name Bilto Name Billto Address Billto City State Postal Service Address Apn# Qty Total Due In Exclusion Period Lien Amount Unpaid Liens Payments Delinquent Amount Admin Fee Total Due Average
Per Unit
9/30/2022 13415900 200 ASSOCIATES LLC 200 ASSOCIATES LLC 1427 KENTFIELD AVE REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 3928 LARCH AVE 029‐415‐024‐000 1 $867.25 ‐$220.62 $646.63 $178.83 $467.80 $83.00 $550.80 Lien 9/30/2022 11040683 ADDI,LINDA ADDI,LINDA 2532 LAKE RIDGE SHORES CIR RENO, NV 89519 1149 OAK AVE 027‐231‐036‐000 1 $911.78 ‐$220.62 $691.16 $207.52 $483.64 $83.00 $566.64 Lien 9/30/2022 13000400 ALBANESE, THOMAS ALBANESE, THOMAS 3397 JANET DR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3397 JANET DR 025‐394‐019‐000 1 $466.01 ‐$249.05 $216.96 $216.96 $83.00 $299.96 Active 9/30/2022 10061492 AMSDEN,ROLAND H AMSDEN,ROLAND H 2645 ARMSTRONG AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2645 ARMSTRONG AVE 031‐133‐009‐000 1 $1,026.37 ‐$220.62 $805.75 $418.56 $387.19 $83.00 $470.19 Lien 9/30/2022 12334600 ANT PROPERTIES INC ANT PROPERTIES INC 2880 SUNRISE BLVD STE 121 RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95742 3330 CAPE HORN RD 027‐231‐034‐000 1 $1,177.50 ‐$220.62 $956.88 $431.24 $525.64 $83.00 $608.64 Lien 9/30/2022 10058033 APLINE HOLDINGS INC ALPINE HOLDINGS INC 5098 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 2610 KNOX AVE 031‐154‐004‐000 1 $1,406.59 ‐$182.97 $1,223.62 $536.41 $687.21 $83.00 $770.21 Lien 9/30/2022 13439600 ARNETT, SAVANNA ARNETT, SAVANNA 1231 TATA LN SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1231 TATA LN 032‐251‐016‐000 1 $696.80 ‐$269.36 $427.44 $427.44 $83.00 $510.44 Active 9/30/2022 10011851 BAKKEN, VICTOR BAKKEN, VICTOR PO BOX 13456 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 830 CAPISTRANO AVE 026‐138‐003‐000 1 $2,234.18 ‐$220.62 $2,013.56 $1,424.87 $588.69 $83.00 $671.69 Lien 9/30/2022 10096474 BALLARD,MICHAEL BALLARD,MICHAEL PO BOX 19992 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3812 MARKOFER WAY 028‐042‐017‐000 2 $1,540.24 ‐$441.24 $1,099.00 $205.99 $893.01 $83.00 $976.01 Lien 9/30/2022 11178805 BARD,ARIAN & TOBIAS BARD,ARIAN & TOBIAS 2732‐ C YOUNG ST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2732 YOUNG ST 031‐093‐011‐000 3 $2,757.84 ‐$661.86 $2,095.98 $643.83 $1,452.15 $83.00 $1,535.15 Lien 9/30/2022 11004183 BARNETT,SUSI BARNETT,SUSI PO BOX 13331 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 1118 CARSON AVE 031‐154‐001‐000 1 $774.50 ‐$140.40 $634.10 $275.20 $358.90 $83.00 $441.90 Lien 9/30/2022 12231500 BAUMFLEK, DIANE BAUMFLEK, DIANE 1176 MARGARET AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1176 MARGARET AVE 032‐277‐024‐000 1 $758.34 ‐$282.78 $475.56 $475.56 $83.00 $558.56 Active 9/30/2022 10031550 BAUTISTA,VERDELLA BAUTISTA,VERDELLA 3164 W ALPINE AVE STOCKTON, CA 95204 3579 BETTY RAE LN 027‐203‐009‐000 1 $3,186.38 ‐$220.62 $2,965.76 $700.77 $2,264.99 $83.00 $2,347.99 Lien 9/30/2022 12300200 BEBOUT, ALEXANDER BEBOUT, ALEXANDER 1120 CRAIG AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1120 CRAIG AVE 027‐231‐002‐000 1 $391.54 ‐$234.88 $156.66 $156.66 $83.00 $239.66 Active 9/30/2022 10062421 BLAYLOCK,EDWIN L BLAYLOCK,EDWIN L 148 MCKINNEY AVE PACIFICA, CA 94044 806 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 023‐912‐006‐000 1 $842.95 ‐$260.94 $582.01 $582.01 $83.00 $665.01 Active 9/30/2022 11052851 BLUSH,MARGARET E BLUSH,MARGARET E 853 TAYLOR WAY SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 853 TAYLOR WAY 023‐633‐009‐000 1 $595.66 ‐$258.01 $337.65 $337.65 $83.00 $420.65 Active 9/30/2022 10008877 BRICKER,CHARLES BRICKER,CHARLES PO BOX 7272 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 2198 MONTEREY DR 022‐051‐002‐000 1 $466.01 ‐$249.05 $216.96 $216.96 $83.00 $299.96 Active 9/30/2022 10091065 BROWER,JANIS BROWER,JANIS PO BOX 19965 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3577 BILL AVE 027‐112‐008‐000 1 $1,127.29 ‐$220.62 $906.67 $401.66 $505.01 $83.00 $588.01 Lien 9/30/2022 10030228 BROWN,NICHOLAS BROWN,NICHOLAS PO BOX 9011 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 2182 VENICE DR 022‐032‐016‐000 1 $1,449.38 ‐$220.62 $1,228.76 $457.17 $771.59 $83.00 $854.59 Lien 9/30/2022 13465800 BUKOV, KONSTANTIN DAMIANOV BUKOV, KONSTANTIN DAMIANOV 9 BELL WAVER WAY OAKLAND, CA 94619 3933 BRIDLE RD 028‐070‐010‐000 1 $583.33 ‐$257.05 $326.28 $326.28 $83.00 $409.28 Active 9/30/2022 10003786 BUSCH, AMY BUSCH, AMY, DUNLAP, JOHN 5311 VIRGINIA WAY SACRAMENTO, CA 95822 2363 WASHINGTON AVE 023‐700‐001‐000 4 $2,985.71 ‐$1,082.25 $1,903.46 $950.00 $953.46 $83.00 $1,036.46 Active 7/31/2022 10031348 BYDAND UNLTD TRUST BYDAND UNLTD TRUST 5608 MEMORY WAY FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 1023 JOHNSON BLVD 027‐180‐017‐000 5 $6,148.42 ‐$1,641.45 $4,506.97 $2,053.70 $2,453.27 $83.00 $2,536.27 Lien 9/30/2022 11251783 CARDENAS,MARIA CARDENAS,MARIA 548 32ND ST RICHMOND, CA 94804 1228 MONUMENT DR 025‐377‐004‐000 1 $866.68 ‐$287.25 $579.43 $579.43 $83.00 $662.43 Active 9/30/2022 11100544 CLELAN,RALPH CLELAN,RALPH 872 LAPHAM DR SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 872 LAPHAM DR 023‐783‐013‐000 1 $1,127.28 ‐$220.62 $906.66 $906.66 $83.00 $989.66 Lien 9/30/2022 11049832 CONNOR,CARLTON CONNOR,CARLTON 771 NEVIN WAY # 1 SAN JOSE, CA 95128‐3239 799 PATRICIA LN 023‐571‐018‐000 1 $1,124.94 ‐$220.62 $904.32 $389.02 $515.30 $83.00 $598.30 Lien 9/30/2022 12942900 COSPER, PATTI COSPER, PATTI 2560 BERTHA AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2560 BERTHA AVE 031‐155‐019‐000 1 $595.66 ‐$258.01 $337.65 $337.65 $83.00 $420.65 Active 9/30/2022 10092304 DE SENNA, WINNIE DE SENNA, WINNIE 1034 EMERALD BAY RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1144 STOCKTON AVE 031‐145‐002‐000 1 $646.62 ‐$220.62 $426.00 $426.00 $83.00 $509.00 Active 9/30/2022 11105531 DI BARI ALEXANDER,DANIELLE DI BARI ALEXANDER,DANIELLE PO BOX 1085 GEYSERVILLE, CA 95441 1434 BOZEMAN DR 025‐764‐022‐000 1 $809.89 ‐$220.62 $589.27 $117.05 $472.22 $83.00 $555.22 Lien 9/30/2022 13267100 DIBELLA, DAVID DIBELLA, DAVID 2212 ROYAL AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2212 ROYAL AVE 023‐664‐009‐000 1 $1,186.84 ‐$220.62 $966.22 $439.28 $526.94 $83.00 $609.94 Lien 9/30/2022 11023244 DOMNIE,SCOTT & ROBIN DOMNIE,SCOTT & ROBIN 3419 BRUCE DR SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3419 BRUCE DR 025‐393‐023‐000 1 $1,127.28 ‐$220.62 $906.66 $401.65 $505.01 $83.00 $588.01 Lien 9/30/2022 10110450 DRAKE, ELIZABETH DRAKE, ELIZABETH 1860 D ST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1860 D ST 032‐281‐002‐000 1 $1,486.16 ‐$220.62 $1,265.54 $683.54 $582.00 $83.00 $665.00 Lien 9/30/2022 11065234 DUFF, RYAN DUFF, RYAN 2681 ALMA AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2681 ALMA AVE 031‐204‐005‐000 1 $1,678.64 ‐$220.62 $1,458.02 $953.02 $505.00 $83.00 $588.00 Lien 9/30/2022 10085022 DURAN,DANIEL DURAN,DANIEL 652 CLEMENT ST SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 652 CLEMENT ST 023‐492‐003‐000 2 $2,177.54 ‐$441.24 $1,736.30 $805.30 $931.00 $83.00 $1,014.00 Lien 9/30/2022 12216300 EBERHART, ROBERT EBERHART, ROBERT 8894 HILL CREST DR MACCLENNY, FL 32063 3047 SACRAMENTO AVE 026‐105‐019‐000 1 $727.09 ‐$271.76 $455.33 $455.33 $83.00 $538.33 Active 9/30/2022 13046300 ELEVATED EQUITIES, LLC ELEVATED EQUITIES, LLC PO BOX 3842 233 NV‐207 STATELINE, NV 89449 1317 KYBURZ AVE 032‐211‐003‐000 1 $1,506.49 ‐$220.62 $1,285.87 $780.87 $505.00 $83.00 $588.00 Lien 9/30/2022 12614900 FAURIA, CRAIG FAURIA, CRAIG 2186 JAMES AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2186 JAMES AVE 023‐211‐015‐000 1 $1,179.38 ‐$220.62 $958.76 $453.76 $505.00 $83.00 $588.00 Lien 9/30/2022 10086282 GARIBALDI,ARTHUR A GARIBALDI,ARTHUR A PO BOX 7224 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 965 TATA LN 023‐481‐013‐000 1 $1,021.90 ‐$220.62 $801.28 $280.26 $521.02 $83.00 $604.02 Lien 9/30/2022 10022756 GATTO, KRIS GATTO, KRIS 3445 TRUCKEE WAY SACRAMENTO, CA 95817 761 SONOMA AVE 026‐124‐016‐000 1 $595.66 ‐$258.01 $337.65 $337.65 $83.00 $420.65 Active 9/30/2022 13401200 GONZALEZ, TERESA GONZALEZ, TERESA 8 BELVEDERE CT NAPA, CA 94559 3609 PIONEER TRL 027‐163‐013‐000 1 $870.55 ‐$287.49 $583.06 $583.06 $83.00 $666.06 Active 9/30/2022 12559100 GORE, RANDY & ELIZABETH GORE, RANDY & ELIZABETH 2454 FOUNTAIN AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2454 FOUNTAIN AVE 031‐275‐005‐000 1 $466.01 ‐$249.05 $216.96 $216.96 $83.00 $299.96 Active 7/31/2022 10117838 HAGOOD,ASHLEY HAGOOD,ASHLEY 5857 JUNIPERO AVE CARMEL, CA 93923 1224 BEECHER AVE 031‐272‐003‐000 1 $1,221.96 ‐$328.29 $893.67 $393.34 $500.33 $83.00 $583.33 Lien 7/31/2022 10086703 HARRINGTON,STEVE HARRINGTON,STEVE 3865 PLEASANT VALLEY RD PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 3515 RANCHO CIR 025‐633‐005‐000 1 $1,128.43 ‐$328.29 $800.14 $340.74 $459.40 $83.00 $542.40 Lien7/31/2022 13128800 HEAVENLY SIERRA LODGE HEAVENLY SIERRA LODGE 3079 HARRISON AVE #11 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3588 MACKEDIE WAY 025‐032‐008‐000 5 $3,577.23 ‐$1,913.19 $1,664.04 $1,664.04 $83.00 $1,747.04 Active 7/31/2022 11121436 HELMY,CHRISTOPHER P HELMY,CHRISTOPHER P 886 S. LOS ROBLES AVE PASADENA, CA 91106 2602 WILLIAM AVE 031‐122‐003‐000 2 $1,652.51 ‐$656.58 $995.93 $205.98 $789.95 $83.00 $872.95 Lien 7/31/2022 12406200 HEMENES,ANTHONY HEMENES,ANTHONY 2225 WASHINGTON AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2225 WASHINGTON AVE 023‐686‐004‐000 1 $1,148.85 ‐$328.29 $820.56 $320.24 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien7/31/2022 10119598 HERSEVOORT,BART HERSEVOORT,BART 3621 MAIDU PLACE DAVIS, CA 95618 840 ROGER AVE 023‐172‐013‐000 1 $594.07 ‐$372.29 $221.78 $221.78 $83.00 $304.78 Active7/31/2022 10073210 HOLOBAUGH,KURT W HOLOBAUGH,KURT W 113 KENNAR WAY FOLSOM, CA 95630 2288 WASHINGTON AVE 023‐903‐013‐000 1 $1,379.61 ‐$328.29 $1,051.32 $539.23 $512.09 $83.00 $595.09 Lien 7/31/2022 11259331 KENISON,NANCY KENISON,NANCY PO BOX 674 NAPA, CA 94559 717 SAN FRANCISCO AVE 026‐067‐016‐000 1 $1,281.96 ‐$398.29 $883.67 $313.34 $570.33 $83.00 $653.33 Lien 7/31/2022 12486000 KUBBY, STEVE KUBBY, STEVE 2940 OAKLAND AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2940 OAKLAND AVE 026‐147‐006‐000 1 $885.48 ‐$371.99 $513.49 $513.49 $83.00 $596.49 Active 7/31/2022 11129522 KUO, JIMMY KUO, JIMMY 167 CIRO AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95128 3608 OSGOOD AVE 027‐054‐013‐000 2 $1,238.08 ‐$792.77 $445.31 $445.31 $83.00 $528.31 Active7/31/2022 12143000 LORD, ELAINE LORD, ELAINE 9233 CONDESA DR SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 1199 BEECHER AVE 031‐278‐005‐000 1 $984.23 ‐$420.40 $563.83 $563.83 $0.00 $83.00 $83.00 Active7/31/2022 10002251 LUDCKE,N LUDCKE,N 79 GRANDVIEW AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 879 MERCED AVE 026‐036‐008‐000 1 $998.73 ‐$424.40 $574.33 $574.33 $83.00 $657.33 Active7/31/2022 10130613 MA,ALVIN K MA,ALVIN K 5056 WICKS LN CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 941 MODESTO AVE 026‐112‐015‐000 2 $2,366.91 ‐$656.58 $1,710.33 $788.68 $921.65 $83.00 $1,004.65 Lien 7/31/2022 10095117 MEERLY, JAMES MEERLY, JAMES 406 CHERYL ST STAGECOACH, NV 89429 900 SOUTH SHORE DR 023‐772‐037‐000 1 $1,700.83 ‐$328.29 $1,372.54 $856.35 $516.19 $83.00 $599.19 Lien 7/31/2022 13015000 MEKRAKSEREE, CHIRAWAT MEKRAKSEREE, CHIRAWAT 904 PATRICIA LANE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1026 MOSS RD 029‐352‐013‐000 1 $998.73 ‐$424.40 $574.33 $574.33 $83.00 $657.33 Active 7/31/2022 13410300 MESERVA, JOHN J. MESERVA, JOHN J. PO BOX 11052 ZEPHYR COVE, NV 89448 955 CREEKWOOD DR 031‐341‐003‐000 1 $842.84 ‐$402.35 $440.49 $440.49 $83.00 $523.49 Active7/31/2022 11010254 MITCHOFF, JACOB MITCHOFF, JACOB 3725 SUDBURY RD CAMERON PARK, CA 95682 3680 SPRUCE AVE 027‐161‐020‐000 3 $3,635.88 ‐$984.87 $2,651.01 $1,079.22 $1,571.79 $83.00 $1,654.79 Lien7/31/2022 11010527 MITCHOFF, JACOB MITCHOFF, JACOB 3725 SADBURY RD CAMERON PARK, CA 95682 3673 SPRUCE AVE 027‐155‐027‐000 4 $3,035.12 ‐$1,583.55 $1,451.57 $1,451.57 $83.00 $1,534.57 Active 7/31/2022 10071862 MORTARA,STEVE MORTARA,STEVE PO BOX 1956 LOS GATOS, CA 95031‐1956 640 TATA LN 023‐442‐010‐000 1 $716.79 ‐$384.30 $332.49 $415.49 ‐$83.00 $83.00 $0.00 Active 7/31/2022 10019437 MURRAY,EDWARD A MURRAY,EDWARD A 351 DUPERU DR CROCKETT, CA 94525 867 SAN FRANCISCO AVE 026‐079‐006‐000 1 $1,299.67 ‐$328.29 $971.38 $422.15 $549.23 $83.00 $632.23 Lien 7/31/2022 10118796 NAND,EVELYN & SUKHANDRA NAND,EVELYN & SUKHANDRA P O BOX 1086 NEWARK, CA 94560 2237 WYOMING AVE 023‐911‐001‐000 1 $1,285.78 ‐$392.11 $893.67 $893.67 $83.00 $976.67 Active 7/31/2022 12781100 NIELSEN, CORY NIELSEN, CORY 2487 OSBORNE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2487 OSBORNE AVE 031‐145‐011‐000 1 $588.00 ‐$371.04 $216.96 $216.96 $83.00 $299.96 Active 7/31/2022 10124591 OHARA,D & T OHARA,D & TP O BOX 18874 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3710 REGINA RD 030‐353‐007‐000 1 $1,882.95 ‐$328.29 $1,554.66 $893.58 $661.08 $83.00 $744.08 Lien7/31/2022 10069639 OLIVER,PETER & KAREN OLIVER,PETER & KAREN 1200 JOBS PEAK DR SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1200 JOBS PEAK DR 025‐375‐010‐000 1 $1,595.46 ‐$328.29 $1,267.17 $845.85 $421.32 $83.00 $504.32 Lien 8/31/2022 12109000 PAUL, PATRALI PAUL, PATRALI 18890 BIARRITZ LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 3309 WOODLAND RD 025‐212‐004‐000 1 $1,270.64 ‐$328.29 $942.35 $442.03 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 1057
Cuttoff Date Acct# Service Name Bilto Name Billto Address Billto City State Postal Service Address Apn# Qty Total Due In Exclusion Period Lien Amount Unpaid Liens Payments Delinquent Amount Admin Fee Total Due Average
Per Unit
8/31/2022 12456400 PENNY, KYLE PENNY, KYLE 2344 PALMER CIR FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 1080 SONORA AVE 027‐131‐019‐000 2 $2,366.91 ‐$656.58 $1,710.33 $788.68 $921.65 $83.00 $1,004.65 Lien 8/31/2022 10016837 PERRYMAN,RUDOLPH PERRYMAN,RUDOLPH 791 REEF POINT CT RODEO, CA 94572 901 SAGEWOOD DR 031‐313‐003‐000 1 $1,286.13 ‐$328.29 $957.84 $457.52 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 8/31/2022 10050067 PERSELL,PATRICIA J PERSELL,PATRICIA J PO BOX 1783 ZEPHYR COVE, NV 89448 897 PATRICIA LN 023‐581‐008‐000 1 $1,289.05 ‐$328.29 $960.76 $460.43 $500.33 $83.00 $583.33 Lien8/31/2022 12840300 PETRAGALLO, MICHAEL PETRAGALLO, MICHAEL 2191 VENICE DRIVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2191 VENICE DR 022‐031‐012‐000 1 $1,812.03 ‐$328.29 $1,483.74 $831.42 $652.32 $83.00 $735.32 Lien8/31/2022 11240063 PFLUM, DAVID PFLUM, DAVID 509 ‐ B WILLOW ST SAINT MARYS, KS 66536 1274 DEDI AVE 032‐282‐034‐000 1 $2,316.25 ‐$328.29 $1,987.96 $1,333.64 $654.32 $83.00 $737.32 Lien 8/31/2022 10005371 PIERCE,CAROL A PIERCE,CAROL A 1141 CHARLES AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1141 CHARLES AVE 031‐173‐005‐000 1 $1,762.48 ‐$328.29 $1,434.19 $933.87 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 8/31/2022 11214141 PRUITT,ROBERT AND KRISTINE PRUITT,ROBERT AND KRISTINE PO BOX 13654 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3221 PLUM ST 025‐392‐004‐000 1 $1,221.95 ‐$328.29 $893.66 $393.34 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 8/31/2022 11028722 RANCK,TRACEY RANCK,TRACEY 168 GRACE ST AUBURN, CA 95603 753 GARDNER ST 023‐625‐016‐000 1 $1,221.96 ‐$328.29 $893.67 $393.35 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 8/31/2022 10026158 ROFF, TIMBER ROFF, TIMBER P O BOX 19924 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 1034 HAM LN 027‐101‐022‐000 1 $981.60 ‐$408.99 $572.61 $572.61 $83.00 $655.61 Active8/31/2022 10029955 ROFF, TIMBER ROFF, TIMBER PO BOX 19924 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3495 RALPH DR 025‐551‐005‐000 1 $980.48 ‐$408.92 $571.56 $571.56 $83.00 $654.56 Active 8/31/2022 10001057 SADARAM,ESWAR SADARAM,ESWAR 2314 MIRTH ST SAN JOSE, CA 95122 1223‐1 BONANZA AVE 032‐371‐001‐000 1 $981.60 ‐$408.99 $572.61 $572.61 $83.00 $655.61 Active 8/31/2022 11068995 SAFFARIAN, JALAL SAFFARIAN, JALAL 15855 JACKSON OAKS DR MORGAN HILLS, CA 95037 699 ELOISE AVE 023‐271‐019‐000 2 $2,366.91 ‐$656.58 $1,710.33 $788.68 $921.65 $83.00 $1,004.65 Lien 8/31/2022 11103243 SAHA, PRONAY SAHA, PRONAY 46 LAPIDGE ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 2657 KNOX AVE 031‐161‐016‐000 4 $2,342.58 ‐$1,402.21 $940.37 $940.37 $83.00 $1,023.37 Active 8/31/2022 10061034 SCHOTT,GENE SCHOTT,GENE 11550 CENTER AVE GILROY, CA 95020 1262 DEDI AVE 032‐282‐037‐000 1 $1,647.97 ‐$328.29 $1,319.68 $742.36 $577.32 $83.00 $660.32 Lien 8/31/2022 11222897 SEDANO, MICHAEL SEDANO, MICHAEL 2952 OAKLAND AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2952 OAKLAND AVE 026‐139‐034‐000 1 $706.99 ‐$374.50 $332.49 $332.49 $83.00 $415.49 Active 8/31/2022 10009113 SHAW‐LUND,KEVIN SHAW‐LUND,KEVIN 929 RUBICON TRL SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 929 RUBICON TRL 031‐255‐008‐000 1 $1,221.96 ‐$328.29 $893.67 $393.34 $500.33 $83.00 $583.33 Lien 8/31/2022 10102148 SHEEHAN,DENNIS E & KELLY SHEEHAN,DENNIS E & KELLY PO BOX 18177 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 728 TALLAC AVE 026‐067‐004‐000 1 $1,221.96 ‐$328.29 $893.67 $393.34 $500.33 $83.00 $583.33 Lien8/31/2022 13105100 SHIPLEY, WILLIAM SHIPLEY, WILLIAM PO BOX 1555 KAILUA, HI 96734 621 TAHOE ISLAND DR 023‐541‐003‐000 1 $1,683.24 ‐$328.29 $1,354.95 $854.63 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 8/31/2022 10087858 SIMMONDS,JOHN E SIMMONDS,JOHN E 3747 ASPEN AVE, #B SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3747 ASPEN AVE 027‐134‐017‐000 2 $2,394.41 ‐$656.58 $1,737.83 $716.57 $1,021.26 $83.00 $1,104.26 Lien 8/31/2022 13128300 SMITH, JAY ANDREW SMITH, JAY ANDREW PO BOX 10620 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 2576 PALMIRA AVE 031‐076‐015‐000 3 $3,738.58 ‐$984.87 $2,753.71 $1,410.74 $1,342.97 $83.00 $1,425.97 Lien 8/31/2022 10051578 SOLWICK,JEFFREY A SOLWICK,JEFFREY A 2535 FOUNTAIN AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2535 FOUNTAIN AVE 031‐214‐015‐000 1 $1,221.96 ‐$328.29 $893.67 $393.34 $500.33 $83.00 $583.33 Lien 8/31/2022 10090468 TAKEYAMA,SUE TAKEYAMA,SUE 1405 PREMIER CT. LAS VEGAS, NV 89117 1947 VENICE DR 022‐341‐006‐000 1 $1,581.21 ‐$328.29 $1,252.92 $664.95 $587.97 $83.00 $670.97 Lien 8/31/2022 10000869 TORVIK,TOM TORVIK,TOM PO BOX 1783 ZEPHYR COVE, NV 89448 1861 F ST 032‐281‐025‐000 1 $1,783.77 ‐$328.29 $1,455.48 $955.16 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien 8/31/2022 12395700 TRUONG, TIFFANY TRUONG, TIFFANY 1449 DAKOTA AVE SAN MATEO, CA 94401 1089 BOWERS AVE 027‐124‐007‐000 1 $706.99 ‐$374.50 $332.49 $332.49 $83.00 $415.49 Active 8/31/2022 13464500 TSAY, VICKIE TSAY, VICKIE 21040 PACIFIC CITY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 3745 BIRCH AVE 027‐152‐016‐000 1 $654.58 ‐$369.69 $284.89 $284.89 $83.00 $367.89 Active8/31/2022 12907900 VARGAS, JOHN VARGAS, JOHN 2075 ENCIMA DR CONCORD, CA 94519 3601 VANDA LEE WAY 027‐204‐007‐000 1 $1,259.78 ‐$328.29 $931.49 $431.17 $500.32 $83.00 $583.32 Lien8/31/2022 11259317 WOELFEL,ROBERT AND JESSICA WOELFEL,ROBERT AND JESSICA 987 EDGEWOOD CT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 772 MODESTO AVE 026‐095‐007‐000 2 $1,418.49 ‐$752.95 $665.54 $665.54 $83.00 $748.54 Active 8/31/2022 10112453 YAMAMOTO,EUGENE YAMAMOTO,EUGENE 1308 RELIEZ VALLEY RD LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 3800 ALDER AVE 027‐143‐002‐000 2 $1,513.59 ‐$656.58 $857.01 $541.48 $315.53 $83.00 $398.53 Lien8/31/2022 10095761 ZARAGOZA JR,MANUEL V ZARAGOZA JR,MANUEL V 9450 MIRA MESA BLVD #C 214 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 1022 ECHO RD 029‐351‐004‐000 1 $1,361.89 ‐$328.29 $1,033.60 $483.00 $550.60 $83.00 $633.60 Lien 94 $133,946.72 ‐$39,324.18 $94,622.54 $35,041.24 $1,929.32 $57,651.98 $7,802.00 $65,453.98 1058
Resolution 2023-007 May 11, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-007
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
May 11, 2023

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONFIRM THE SOUTH

TAHOE REFUSE FINAL DELINQUENT FEES REPORT

BACKGROUND
A. South Lake Tahoe City Code Section 4.150.300 specifies the liability for residential and commercial property owners and/or occupants to pay for refuse service made available to the premise, irrespective of the actual use or the refuse collection service; and
B. South Lake Tahoe City Code Section 4.150.370 makes delinquent refuse fees civil debts owed to the City and subject to collection; and C. Government Code Section 25831 authorizes the collection of delinquent solid waste ( refuse) fees by the County, and Government Code Section 38790. 1 states, “ any city collecting garbage fees or charges may collect delinquent fees or charges in the manner provided in Section 25831 for counties;” and D. Pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code Section 4.150.370, South Tahoe Refuse has prepared a Final Delinquent Fees Report of fees unpaid for 180 days or more; and
E. South Tahoe Refuse, on April 10, 2023, mailed certified letters to individuals on the report notifying them of the lien process, and informing them of the public hearings to consider objections and protests; and
F. On April 28, 2023, a public notice was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune providing notice that the Planning Commission would consider the delinquent fees report at their regular scheduled meeting on May 11, 2023, and the City Council would be considering the Delinquent Fees Report at their regular scheduled meeting on June 20, 2023; and
G. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to hear objections or protests of landowners liable for delinquent fees; and 1059
Resolution 2023-007 May 11, 2023 Page 2 of 2

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Recommends that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe confirm the Final Delinquent Fees Report ( Exhibit A) and directs the Finance Department to send a Certified Copy of the Report to the El Dorado County Auditor- Controller to add the delinquent amounts to the county property tax rolls for collection.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on May 11, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes: Feiger, Howard, Roberts, Speal and Wieczorek
Date:_________
Natalia Wieczorek, Chair
Attest:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Sue Blankenship ( May 17, 2023 13: 27 PDT)
Natalia Wieczorek (May 17, 2023 13:30 PDT)
May 17, 2023
1060
Cuttoff Date Acct# Service Name Bilto Name Billto Address Billto City State Postal Service Address Apn# Qty Total Due In Exclusion Period Lien Amount Unpaid Liens Payments Delinquent Amount Admin Fee Total Due Average
Per Unit
9/ 30/ 2022 13415900 200 ASSOCIATES LLC 200 ASSOCIATES LLC 1427 KENTFIELD AVE REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 3928 LARCH AVE 029 415 024 000 1 $ 867. 25 $ 220. 62 $ 646. 63 $ 178. 83 $ 467. 80 $ 83.00 $ 550. 80 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11040683 ADDI, LINDA ADDI, LINDA 2532 LAKE RIDGE SHORES CIR RENO, NV 89519 1149 OAK AVE 027 231 036 000 1 $ 911. 78 $ 220. 62 $ 691. 16 $ 207. 52 $ 483. 64 $ 83.00 $ 566. 64 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 13000400 ALBANESE, THOMAS ALBANESE, THOMAS 3397 JANET DR SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3397 JANET DR 025 394 019 000 1 $ 466. 01 $ 249. 05 $ 216. 96 $ 216. 96 $ 83.00 $ 299. 96 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 12604700 ALVAREZ, LETICIA MAYA ALVAREZ, LETICIA MAYA PO BOX 16907 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 1342 SUSIE LAKE RD 025 223 017 000 1 $ 1,174. 95 $ 220. 62 $ 954. 33 $ 449. 33 $ 505. 00 $ 83.00 $ 588. 00 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10061492 AMSDEN, ROLAND H AMSDEN, ROLAND H 2645 ARMSTRONG AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2645 ARMSTRONG AVE 031 133 009 000 1 $ 1,026. 37 $ 220. 62 $ 805. 75 $ 418. 56 $ 387. 19 $ 83.00 $ 470. 19 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 12334600 ANT PROPERTIES INC ANT PROPERTIES INC 2880 SUNRISE BLVD STE 121 RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95742 3330 CAPE HORN RD 027 231 034 000 1 $ 1,177. 50 $ 220. 62 $ 956. 88 $ 431. 24 $ 525. 64 $ 83.00 $ 608. 64 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10058033 APLINE HOLDINGS INC ALPINE HOLDINGS INC 5098 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 2610 KNOX AVE 031 154 004 000 1 $ 1,406. 59 $ 182. 97 $ 1,223. 62 $ 536. 41 $ 687. 21 $ 83.00 $ 770. 21 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 13439600 ARNETT, SAVANNA ARNETT, SAVANNA 1231 TATA LN SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1231 TATA LN 032 251 016 000 1 $ 696. 80 $ 269. 36 $ 427. 44 $ 427. 44 $ 83.00 $ 510. 44 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10011851 BAKKEN, VICTOR BAKKEN, VICTOR PO BOX 13456 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 830 CAPISTRANO AVE 026 138 003 000 1 $ 2,234. 18 $ 220. 62 $ 2,013. 56 $ 1,424. 87 $ 588. 69 $ 83.00 $ 671. 69 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10096474 BALLARD, MICHAEL BALLARD, MICHAEL PO BOX 19992 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3812 MARKOFER WAY 028 042 017 000 2 $ 1,540. 24 $ 441. 24 $ 1,099. 00 $ 205. 99 $ 893. 01 $ 83.00 $ 976. 01 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11178805 BARD, ARIAN TOBIAS BARD, ARIAN TOBIAS 2732 C YOUNG ST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2732 YOUNG ST 031 093 011 000 3 $ 2,757. 84 $ 661. 86 $ 2,095. 98 $ 643. 83 $ 1,452. 15 $ 83.00 $ 1,535. 15 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11004183 BARNETT, SUSI BARNETT, SUSI PO BOX 13331 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 1118 CARSON AVE 031 154 001 000 1 $ 774. 50 $ 140. 40 $ 634. 10 $ 275. 20 $ 358. 90 $ 83.00 $ 441. 90 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 12231500 BAUMFLEK, DIANE BAUMFLEK, DIANE 1176 MARGARET AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1176 MARGARET AVE 032 277 024 000 1 $ 758. 34 $ 282. 78 $ 475. 56 $ 475. 56 $ 83.00 $ 558. 56 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10031550 BAUTISTA, VERDELLA BAUTISTA, VERDELLA 3164 W ALPINE AVE STOCKTON, CA 95204 3579 BETTY RAE LN 027 203 009 000 1 $ 3,186. 38 $ 220. 62 $ 2,965. 76 $ 700. 77 $ 2,264. 99 $ 83.00 $ 2,347. 99 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 12300200 BEBOUT, ALEXANDER BEBOUT, ALEXANDER 1120 CRAIG AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1120 CRAIG AVE 027 231 002 000 1 $ 391. 54 $ 234. 88 $ 156. 66 $ 156. 66 $ 83.00 $ 239. 66 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10062421 BLAYLOCK, EDWIN L BLAYLOCK, EDWIN L 148 MCKINNEY AVE PACIFICA, CA 94044 806 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 023 912 006 000 1 $ 842. 95 $ 260. 94 $ 582. 01 $ 582. 01 $ 83.00 $ 665. 01 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 11052851 BLUSH, MARGARET E BLUSH, MARGARET E 853 TAYLOR WAY SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 853 TAYLOR WAY 023 633 009 000 1 $ 595. 66 $ 258. 01 $ 337. 65 $ 337. 65 $ 83.00 $ 420. 65 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10008877 BRICKER, CHARLES BRICKER, CHARLES PO BOX 7272 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 2198 MONTEREY DR 022 051 002 000 1 $ 466. 01 $ 249. 05 $ 216. 96 $ 216. 96 $ 83.00 $ 299. 96 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10091065 BROWER, JANIS BROWER, JANIS PO BOX 19965 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3577 BILL AVE 027 112 008 000 1 $ 1,127. 29 $ 220. 62 $ 906. 67 $ 401. 66 $ 505. 01 $ 83.00 $ 588. 01 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10030228 BROWN, NICHOLAS BROWN, NICHOLAS PO BOX 9011 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 2182 VENICE DR 022 032 016 000 1 $ 1,449. 38 $ 220. 62 $ 1,228. 76 $ 457. 17 $ 771. 59 $ 83.00 $ 854. 59 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 13465800 BUKOV, KONSTANTIN DAMIANOV BUKOV, KONSTANTIN DAMIANOV 9 BELL WAVER WAY OAKLAND, CA 94619 3933 BRIDLE RD 028 070 010 000 1 $ 583. 33 $ 257. 05 $ 326. 28 $ 326. 28 $ 83.00 $ 409. 28 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10003786 BUSCH, AMY BUSCH, AMY, DUNLAP, JOHN 5311 VIRGINIA WAY SACRAMENTO, CA 95822 2363 WASHINGTON AVE 023 700 001 000 4 $ 2,985. 71 $ 1,082. 25 $ 1,903. 46 $ 950. 00 $ 953. 46 $ 83.00 $ 1,036. 46 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10031348 BYDAND UNLTD TRUST BYDAND UNLTD TRUST 5608 MEMORY WAY FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 1023 JOHNSON BLVD 027 180 017 000 5 6148. 42 1641. 45 4506. 97 $ 2,053. 70 $ 2,453. 27 $ 83.00 $ 2,536. 27 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11251783 CARDENAS, MARIA CARDENAS, MARIA 548 32ND ST RICHMOND, CA 94804 1228 MONUMENT DR 025 377 004 000 1 866. 68 287. 25 579. 43 $ 579. 43 $ 83.00 $ 662. 43 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 11100544 CLELAN, RALPH CLELAN, RALPH 872 LAPHAM DR SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 872 LAPHAM DR 023 783 013 000 1 $ 1,127. 28 $ 220. 62 $ 906. 66 $ 906. 66 $ 83.00 $ 989. 66 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11049832 CONNOR, CARLTON CONNOR, CARLTON 771 NEVIN WAY 1 SAN JOSE, CA 95128 3239 799 PATRICIA LN 023 571 018 000 1 $ 1,124. 94 $ 220. 62 $ 904. 32 $ 389. 02 $ 515. 30 $ 83.00 $ 598. 30 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 12942900 COSPER, PATTI COSPER, PATTI 2560 BERTHA AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2560 BERTHA AVE 031 155 019 000 1 $ 595. 66 $ 258. 01 $ 337. 65 $ 337. 65 $ 83.00 $ 420. 65 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 10092304 DE SENNA, WINNIE DE SENNA, WINNIE 1034 EMERALD BAY RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1144 STOCKTON AVE 031 145 002 000 1 $ 646. 62 $ 220. 62 $ 426. 00 $ 426. 00 $ 83.00 $ 509. 00 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 11105531 DI BARI ALEXANDER, DANIELLE DI BARI ALEXANDER, DANIELLE PO BOX 1085 GEYSERVILLE, CA 95441 1434 BOZEMAN DR 025 764 022 000 1 $ 809. 89 $ 220. 62 $ 589. 27 $ 117. 05 $ 472. 22 $ 83.00 $ 555. 22 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 13267100 DIBELLA, DAVID DIBELLA, DAVID 2212 ROYAL AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2212 ROYAL AVE 023 664 009 000 1 $ 1,186. 84 $ 220. 62 $ 966. 22 $ 439. 28 $ 526. 94 $ 83.00 $ 609. 94 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11023244 DOMNIE, SCOTT ROBIN DOMNIE, SCOTT ROBIN 3419 BRUCE DR SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3419 BRUCE DR 025 393 023 000 1 $ 1,127. 28 $ 220. 62 $ 906. 66 $ 401. 65 $ 505. 01 $ 83.00 $ 588. 01 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10110450 DRAKE, ELIZABETH DRAKE, ELIZABETH 1860 D ST SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1860 D ST 032 281 002 000 1 $ 1,486. 16 $ 220. 62 $ 1,265. 54 $ 683. 54 $ 582. 00 $ 83.00 $ 665. 00 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 11065234 DUFF, RYAN DUFF, RYAN 2681 ALMA AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2681 ALMA AVE 031 204 005 000 1 $ 1,678. 64 $ 220. 62 $ 1,458. 02 $ 953. 02 $ 505. 00 $ 83.00 $ 588. 00 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10085022 DURAN, DANIEL DURAN, DANIEL 652 CLEMENT ST SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 652 CLEMENT ST 023 492 003 000 2 $ 2,177. 54 $ 441. 24 $ 1,736. 30 $ 805. 30 $ 931. 00 $ 83.00 $ 1,014. 00 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 12216300 EBERHART, ROBERT EBERHART, ROBERT 8894 HILL CREST DR MACCLENNY, FL 32063 3047 SACRAMENTO AVE 026 105 019 000 1 $ 727. 09 $ 271. 76 $ 455. 33 $ 455. 33 $ 83.00 $ 538. 33 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 13046300 ELEVATED EQUITIES, LLC ELEVATED EQUITIES, LLC PO BOX 3842 233 NV 207 STATELINE, NV 89449 1317 KYBURZ AVE 032 211 003 000 1 $ 1,506. 49 $ 220. 62 $ 1,285. 87 $ 780. 87 $ 505. 00 $ 83.00 $ 588. 00 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 12614900 FAURIA, CRAIG FAURIA, CRAIG 2186 JAMES AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2186 JAMES AVE 023 211 015 000 1 $ 1,179. 38 $ 220. 62 $ 958. 76 $ 453. 76 $ 505. 00 $ 83.00 $ 588. 00 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10086282 GARIBALDI, ARTHUR A GARIBALDI, ARTHUR APOBOX 7224 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 965 TATA LN 023 481 013 000 1 $ 1,021. 90 $ 220. 62 $ 801. 28 $ 280. 26 $ 521. 02 $ 83.00 $ 604. 02 Lien 9/ 30/ 2022 10022756 GATTO, KRIS GATTO, KRIS 3445 TRUCKEE WAY SACRAMENTO, CA 95817 761 SONOMA AVE 026 124 016 000 1 $ 595. 66 $ 258. 01 $ 337. 65 $ 337. 65 $ 83.00 $ 420. 65 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 13401200 GONZALEZ, TERESA GONZALEZ, TERESA 8 BELVEDERE CT NAPA, CA 94559 3609 PIONEER TRL 027 163 013 000 1 $ 870. 55 $ 287. 49 $ 583. 06 $ 583. 06 $ 83.00 $ 666. 06 Active 9/ 30/ 2022 12559100 GORE, RANDY ELIZABETH GORE, RANDY ELIZABETH 2454 FOUNTAIN AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2454 FOUNTAIN AVE 031 275 005 000 1 $ 466. 01 $ 249. 05 $ 216. 96 $ 216. 96 $ 83.00 $ 299. 96 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10117838 HAGOOD, ASHLEY HAGOOD, ASHLEY 5857 JUNIPERO AVE CARMEL, CA 93923 1224 BEECHER AVE 031 272 003 000 1 $ 1,221. 96 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 67 $ 393. 34 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 10086703 HARRINGTON, STEVE HARRINGTON, STEVE 3865 PLEASANT VALLEY RD PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 3515 RANCHO CIR 025 633 005 000 1 $ 1,128. 43 $ 328. 29 $ 800. 14 $ 340. 74 $ 459. 40 $ 83.00 $ 542. 40 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 13128800 HEAVENLY SIERRA LODGE HEAVENLY SIERRA LODGE 3079 HARRISON AVE 11 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3588 MACKEDIE WAY 025 032 008 000 5 $ 3,577. 23 $ 1,913. 19 $ 1,664. 04 $ 1,664. 04 $ 83.00 $ 1,747. 04 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 11121436 HELMY, CHRISTOPHER P HELMY, CHRISTOPHER P 886 S. LOS ROBLES AVE PASADENA, CA 91106 2602 WILLIAM AVE 031 122 003 000 2 $ 1,652. 51 $ 656. 58 $ 995. 93 $ 205. 98 $ 789. 95 $ 83.00 $ 872. 95 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 12406200 HEMENES, ANTHONY HEMENES, ANTHONY 2225 WASHINGTON AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2225 WASHINGTON AVE 023 686 004 000 1 $ 1,148. 85 $ 328. 29 $ 820. 56 $ 320. 24 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 10119598 HERSEVOORT, BART HERSEVOORT, BART 3621 MAIDU PLACE DAVIS, CA 95618 840 ROGER AVE 023 172 013 000 1 $ 594. 07 $ 372. 29 $ 221. 78 $ 221. 78 $ 83.00 $ 304. 78 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10073210 HOLOBAUGH, KURT W HOLOBAUGH, KURT W 113 KENNAR WAY FOLSOM, CA 95630 2288 WASHINGTON AVE 023 903 013 000 1 $ 1,379. 61 $ 328. 29 $ 1,051. 32 $ 539. 23 $ 512. 09 $ 83.00 $ 595. 09 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 12294500 JAIMES, ANTONIO JAIMES, ANTONIO 3576 BILL AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3576 BILL AVE 027 113 029 000 1 $ 1,444. 24 $ 328. 29 $ 1,115. 95 $ 536. 41 $ 400. 00 $ 179. 54 $ 83.00 $ 262. 54 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 11259331 KENISON, NANCY KENISON, NANCY PO BOX 674 NAPA, CA 94559 717 SAN FRANCISCO AVE 026 067 016 000 1 $ 1,281. 96 $ 398. 29 $ 883. 67 $ 313. 34 $ 570. 33 $ 83.00 $ 653. 33 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 12486000 KUBBY, STEVE KUBBY, STEVE 2940 OAKLAND AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2940 OAKLAND AVE 026 147 006 000 1 $ 885. 48 $ 371. 99 $ 513. 49 $ 513. 49 $ 83.00 $ 596. 49 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 11129522 KUO, JIMMY KUO, JIMMY 167 CIRO AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95128 3608 OSGOOD AVE 027 054 013 000 2 $ 1,238. 08 $ 792. 77 $ 445. 31 $ 445. 31 $ 83.00 $ 528. 31 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 12143000 LORD, ELAINE LORD, ELAINE 9233 CONDESA DR SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 1199 BEECHER AVE 031 278 005 000 1 $ 984. 23 $ 420. 40 $ 563. 83 $ 563. 83 $ 83.00 $ 646. 83 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10002251 LUDCKE, N LUDCKE, N 79 GRANDVIEW AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 879 MERCED AVE 026 036 008 000 1 $ 998. 73 $ 424. 40 $ 574. 33 $ 574. 33 $ 83.00 $ 657. 33 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10130613 MA, ALVIN K MA, ALVIN K 5056 WICKS LN CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 941 MODESTO AVE 026 112 015 000 2 $ 2,366. 91 $ 656. 58 $ 1,710. 33 $ 788. 68 $ 921. 65 $ 83.00 $ 1,004. 65 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 10095117 MEERLY, JAMES MEERLY, JAMES 406 CHERYL ST STAGECOACH, NV 89429 900 SOUTH SHORE DR 023 772 037 000 1 $ 1,700. 83 $ 328. 29 $ 1,372. 54 $ 856. 35 $ 516. 19 $ 83.00 $ 599. 19 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 13015000 MEKRAKSEREE, CHIRAWAT MEKRAKSEREE, CHIRAWAT 904 PATRICIA LANE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1026 MOSS RD 029 352 013 000 1 $ 998. 73 $ 424. 40 $ 574. 33 $ 574. 33 $ 83.00 $ 657. 33 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 13410300 MESERVA, JOHN J. MESERVA, JOHN J. PO BOX 11052 ZEPHYR COVE, NV 89448 955 CREEKWOOD DR 031 341 003 000 1 $ 842. 84 $ 402. 35 $ 440. 49 $ 440. 49 $ 83.00 $ 523. 49 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 11010254 MITCHOFF, JACOB MITCHOFF, JACOB 3725 SUDBURY RD CAMERON PARK, CA 95682 3680 SPRUCE AVE 027 161 020 000 3 $ 3,635. 88 $ 984. 87 $ 2,651. 01 $ 1,079. 22 $ 1,571. 79 $ 83.00 $ 1,654. 79 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 11010527 MITCHOFF, JACOB MITCHOFF, JACOB 3725 SADBURY RD CAMERON PARK, CA 95682 3673 SPRUCE AVE 027 155 027 000 4 $ 3,035. 12 $ 1,583. 55 $ 1,451. 57 $ 1,451. 57 $ 83.00 $ 1,534. 57 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10071862 MORTARA, STEVE MORTARA, STEVE PO BOX 1956 LOS GATOS, CA 95031 1956 640 TATA LN 023 442 010 000 1 $ 716. 79 $ 384. 30 $ 332. 49 $ 332. 49 $ 83.00 $ 415. 49 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10019437 MURRAY, EDWARD A MURRAY, EDWARD A 351 DUPERU DR CROCKETT, CA 94525 867 SAN FRANCISCO AVE 026 079 006 000 1 $ 1,299. 67 $ 328. 29 $ 971. 38 $ 422. 15 $ 549. 23 $ 83.00 $ 632. 23 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 10118796 NAND, EVELYN SUKHANDRA NAND, EVELYN SUKHANDRA P O BOX 1086 NEWARK, CA 94560 2237 WYOMING AVE 023 911 001 000 1 $ 1,285. 78 $ 392. 11 $ 893. 67 $ 893. 67 $ 83.00 $ 976. 67 Active 7/ 31/ 2022 10039314 NEWLANDS, JOAN NEWLANDS, JOAN 925 SAN FRANCISCO AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 925 SAN FRANCISCO AVE 026 087 012 000 1 $ 1,221. 96 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 67 $ 393. 34 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 12781100 NIELSEN, CORY NIELSEN, CORY 2487 OSBORNE AVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2487 OSBORNE AVE 031 145 011 000 1 $ 588. 00 $ 371. 04 $ 216. 96 $ 216. 96 $ 83.00 $ 299. 96 Active 1061
Cuttoff Date Acct# Service Name Bilto Name Billto Address Billto City State Postal Service Address Apn# Qty Total Due In Exclusion Period Lien Amount Unpaid Liens Payments Delinquent Amount Admin Fee Total Due Average
Per Unit
7/ 31/ 2022 10124591 OHARA, D T OHARA, D TPO BOX 18874 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3710 REGINA RD 030 353 007 000 1 $ 1,882. 95 $ 328. 29 $ 1,554. 66 $ 893. 58 $ 661. 08 $ 83.00 $ 744. 08 Lien 7/ 31/ 2022 10069639 OLIVER, PETER KAREN OLIVER, PETER KAREN 1200 JOBS PEAK DR SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1200 JOBS PEAK DR 025 375 010 000 1 $ 1,595. 46 $ 328. 29 $ 1,267. 17 $ 845. 85 $ 421. 32 $ 83.00 $ 504. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11253100 PALMER, NICOLAS PALMER, NICOLAS 2524 FOUNTAIN AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2524 FOUNTAIN AVE 031 216 006 000 1 $ 1,289. 05 $ 328. 29 $ 960. 76 $ 460. 43 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 12109000 PAUL, PATRALI PAUL, PATRALI 18890 BIARRITZ LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 3309 WOODLAND RD 025 212 004 000 1 $ 1,270. 64 $ 328. 29 $ 942. 35 $ 442. 03 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 12456400 PENNY, KYLE PENNY, KYLE 2344 PALMER CIR FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 1080 SONORA AVE 027 131 019 000 2 $ 2,366. 91 $ 656. 58 $ 1,710. 33 $ 788. 68 $ 921. 65 $ 83.00 $ 1,004. 65 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10016837 PERRYMAN, RUDOLPH PERRYMAN, RUDOLPH 791 REEF POINT CT RODEO, CA 94572 901 SAGEWOOD DR 031 313 003 000 1 $ 1,286. 13 $ 328. 29 $ 957. 84 $ 457. 52 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10050067 PERSELL, PATRICIA J PERSELL, PATRICIA JPOBOX 1783 ZEPHYR COVE, NV 89448 897 PATRICIA LN 023 581 008 000 1 $ 1,289. 05 $ 328. 29 $ 960. 76 $ 460. 43 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 12840300 PETRAGALLO, MICHAEL PETRAGALLO, MICHAEL 2191 VENICE DRIVE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2191 VENICE DR 022 031 012 000 1 $ 1,812. 03 $ 328. 29 $ 1,483. 74 $ 831. 42 $ 652. 32 $ 83.00 $ 735. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11240063 PFLUM, DAVID PFLUM, DAVID 509 B WILLOW ST SAINT MARYS, KS 66536 1274 DEDI AVE 032 282 034 000 1 $ 2,316. 25 $ 328. 29 $ 1,987. 96 $ 1,333. 64 $ 654. 32 $ 83.00 $ 737. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10005371 PIERCE, CAROL A PIERCE, CAROL A 1141 CHARLES AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 1141 CHARLES AVE 031 173 005 000 1 $ 1,762. 48 $ 328. 29 $ 1,434. 19 $ 933. 87 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11214141 PRUITT, ROBERT AND KRISTINE PRUITT, ROBERT AND KRISTINE PO BOX 13654 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3221 PLUM ST 025 392 004 000 1 $ 1,221. 95 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 66 $ 393. 34 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11028722 RANCK, TRACEY RANCK, TRACEY 168 GRACE ST AUBURN, CA 95603 753 GARDNER ST 023 625 016 000 1 $ 1,221. 96 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 67 $ 393. 35 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10026158 ROFF, TIMBER ROFF, TIMBER P O BOX 19924 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 1034 HAM LN 027 101 022 000 1 $ 981. 60 $ 408. 99 $ 572. 61 $ 572. 61 $ 83.00 $ 655. 61 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 10029955 ROFF, TIMBER ROFF, TIMBER PO BOX 19924 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 3495 RALPH DR 025 551 005 000 1 $ 980. 48 $ 408. 92 $ 571. 56 $ 571. 56 $ 83.00 $ 654. 56 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 10001057 SADARAM, ESWAR SADARAM, ESWAR 2314 MIRTH ST SAN JOSE, CA 95122 1223 1 BONANZA AVE 032 371 001 000 1 $ 981. 60 $ 408. 99 $ 572. 61 $ 572. 61 $ 83.00 $ 655. 61 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 11068995 SAFFARIAN, JALAL SAFFARIAN, JALAL 15855 JACKSON OAKS DR MORGAN HILLS, CA 95037 699 ELOISE AVE 023 271 019 000 2 $ 2,366. 91 $ 656. 58 $ 1,710. 33 $ 788. 68 $ 921. 65 $ 83.00 $ 1,004. 65 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11103243 SAHA, PRONAY SAHA, PRONAY 46 LAPIDGE ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 2657 KNOX AVE 031 161 016 000 4 $ 2,342. 58 $ 1,402. 21 $ 940. 37 $ 940. 37 $ 83.00 $ 1,023. 37 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 10061034 SCHOTT, GENE SCHOTT, GENE 11550 CENTER AVE GILROY, CA 95020 1262 DEDI AVE 032 282 037 000 1 $ 1,647. 97 $ 328. 29 $ 1,319. 68 $ 742. 36 $ 577. 32 $ 83.00 $ 660. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11222897 SEDANO, MICHAEL SEDANO, MICHAEL 2952 OAKLAND AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2952 OAKLAND AVE 026 139 034 000 1 $ 706. 99 $ 374. 50 $ 332. 49 $ 332. 49 $ 83.00 $ 415. 49 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 10009113 SHAW LUND, KEVIN SHAW LUND, KEVIN 929 RUBICON TRL SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 929 RUBICON TRL 031 255 008 000 1 $ 1,221. 96 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 67 $ 393. 34 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10102148 SHEEHAN, DENNIS E KELLY SHEEHAN, DENNIS E KELLY PO BOX 18177 SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96151 728 TALLAC AVE 026 067 004 000 1 $ 1,221. 96 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 67 $ 393. 34 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 13105100 SHIPLEY, WILLIAM SHIPLEY, WILLIAM PO BOX 1555 KAILUA, HI 96734 621 TAHOE ISLAND DR 023 541 003 000 1 $ 1,683. 24 $ 328. 29 $ 1,354. 95 $ 854. 63 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10087858 SIMMONDS, JOHN E SIMMONDS, JOHN E 3747 ASPEN AVE, B SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 3747 ASPEN AVE 027 134 017 000 2 $ 2,394. 41 $ 656. 58 $ 1,737. 83 $ 716. 57 $ 1,021. 26 $ 83.00 $ 1,104. 26 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 13128300 SMITH, JAY ANDREW SMITH, JAY ANDREW PO BOX 10620 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 2576 PALMIRA AVE 031 076 015 000 3 $ 3,738. 58 $ 984. 87 $ 2,753. 71 $ 1,410. 74 $ 1,342. 97 $ 83.00 $ 1,425. 97 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10051578 SOLWICK, JEFFREY A SOLWICK, JEFFREY A 2535 FOUNTAIN AVE SO LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 2535 FOUNTAIN AVE 031 214 015 000 1 $ 1,221. 96 $ 328. 29 $ 893. 67 $ 393. 34 $ 500. 33 $ 83.00 $ 583. 33 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10002062 STANAWAY, DONALD F STANAWAY, DONALD F 1200 MILLBRAE AVE MILBRAE, CA 94030 3603 ALDER AVE 027 123 021 000 1 $ 1,409. 00 $ 328. 29 $ 1,080. 71 $ 580. 39 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10028827 STANAWAY, DONALD F CAROL STANAWAY, DONALD F CAROL 1200 MILLBRAE AVE MILBRAE, CA 94030 3607 ALDER AVE 027 123 020 000 1 $ 1,409. 00 $ 328. 29 $ 1,080. 71 $ 580. 39 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10090468 TAKEYAMA, SUE TAKEYAMA, SUE 1405 PREMIER CT. LAS VEGAS, NV 89117 1947 VENICE DR 022 341 006 000 1 $ 1,581. 21 $ 328. 29 $ 1,252. 92 $ 664. 95 $ 587. 97 $ 83.00 $ 670. 97 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10000869 TORVIK, TOM TORVIK, TOM PO BOX 1783 ZEPHYR COVE, NV 89448 1861 F ST 032 281 025 000 1 $ 1,783. 77 $ 328. 29 $ 1,455. 48 $ 955. 16 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 12395700 TRUONG, TIFFANY TRUONG, TIFFANY 1449 DAKOTA AVE SAN MATEO, CA 94401 1089 BOWERS AVE 027 124 007 000 1 $ 706. 99 $ 374. 50 $ 332. 49 $ 332. 49 $ 83.00 $ 415. 49 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 13464500 TSAY, VICKIE TSAY, VICKIE 21040 PACIFIC CITY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 3745 BIRCH AVE 027 152 016 000 1 $ 654. 58 $ 369. 69 $ 284. 89 $ 284. 89 $ 83.00 $ 367. 89 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 12907900 VARGAS, JOHN VARGAS, JOHN 2075 ENCIMA DR CONCORD, CA 94519 3601 VANDA LEE WAY 027 204 007 000 1 $ 1,259. 78 $ 328. 29 $ 931. 49 $ 431. 17 $ 500. 32 $ 83.00 $ 583. 32 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 11259317 WOELFEL, ROBERT AND JESSICA WOELFEL, ROBERT AND JESSICA 987 EDGEWOOD CT SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 772 MODESTO AVE 026 095 007 000 2 $ 1,418. 49 $ 752. 95 $ 665. 54 $ 665. 54 $ 83.00 $ 748. 54 Active 8/ 31/ 2022 10112453 YAMAMOTO, EUGENE YAMAMOTO, EUGENE 1308 RELIEZ VALLEY RD LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 3800 ALDER AVE 027 143 002 000 2 $ 1,513. 59 $ 656. 58 $ 857. 01 $ 541. 48 $ 315. 53 $ 83.00 $ 398. 53 Lien 8/ 31/ 2022 10095761 ZARAGOZA JR, MANUEL V ZARAGOZA JR, MANUEL V 9450 MIRA MESA BLVD C 214 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 1022 ECHO RD 029 351 004 000 1 $ 1,361. 89 $ 328. 29 $ 1,033. 60 $ 483. 00 $ 550. 60 $ 83.00 $ 633. 60 Lien 100 $ 141, 894. 92 $ 41,186. 25 $ 100, 708. 67 $ 38,041. 53 $ 1,350. 00 $ 61,317. 14 $ 8,300. 00 $ 69,617. 14 1062
Resolution 2023-007 So.Tahoe Refuse Del. Fee
Final Audit Report 2023- 05-17
Created: 2023- 05-17
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAXxBmoEKNsgztUTkJgUXQT65tVq0ijh8p Resolution 2023-007 So.Tahoe Refuse Del. Fee" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2023- 05- 17 - 7:19:29 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2023- 05- 17 - 7:20:18 PM GMT
Email viewed by Sue Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2023- 05- 17 - 8:27:07 PM GMT- IP address: 104. 47.64.254 Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023- 05-17 - 8:27:16 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023- 05- 17 - 8:27:17 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023- 05- 17 - 8:29:48 PM GMT- IP address: 75.141. 194. 122 Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Natalia Wieczorek 2023- 05- 17 - 8:30:25 PM GMT- IP address: 172. 56.184. 158 Document e-signed by Natalia Wieczorek ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023- 05-17 - 8:30:27 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 172. 56.184. 158 Agreement completed.
2023- 05- 17 - 8:30:27 PM GMT
1063
May 11 Planning Commission Meeting - Page 2 of 2
1064
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 20, 2023
Agenda Item #: 17
Agenda Item: Confirmation of Termination and Rescission of Development Agreement with Perfect Union SLT, LLC
Executive Summary: On June 15, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2021-1155 terminating the Development Agreement with Perfect Union SLT, LLC (“Perfect Union”). Subsequently, Perfect Union filed a lawsuit against the City challenging this action. During the course of this lawsuit and documents produced by Perfect Union following a motion to compel, the City has become aware of additional grounds supporting termination and rescission of the Development Agreement. The City Attorney recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance confirming termination and recission of the Development Agreement with Perfect Union to document these additional grounds, namely Perfect Union's uncurable lack of legal or equitable interest in the subject property at the time the Development Agreement was executed, and an unauthorized attempt to transfer and/or actual transfer of ownership or control of the business.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to hold a first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance Confirming Termination and Rescission of the Development Agreement with Perfect Union SLT, LLC, and refer second reading and adoption to August 8, 2023.

Responsible Staff Member: Heather Stroud, City Attorney Responsible Staff Member: Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-6046 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Attachments:
01 - Staff Report.docx
02 - Ordinance Confirming Termination and Rescission of DA.docx 03 - Exh. A to Ordinance (Mitracos v City of Tracy).pdf 04 - Exh. B to Ordinance (Side Letter).pdf
05 - Exh. C to Ordinance (Conditional Assignment of Membership Interest).pdf 06 - Exh. D to Ordinance (Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Membership Interest).pdf 07-Notice of Public Hearing - Perfect Union.pdf
1065
City Council Agenda Report- June 20, 2023 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: June 20, 2023
Title: Confirmation of Termination and Rescission of Development Agreement with Perfect Union SLT, LLC
Location: 2227 James Ave., Suite 5
Responsible Staff Member: Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-6046 Background:

On June 15, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2021-1155 terminating the Development Agreement with Perfect Union SLT, LLC (“Perfect Union”). Subsequently, Perfect Union filed a lawsuit against the City (El Dorado County Superior Court Case No. SC20210172) alleging a breach of contract and seeking relief including damages, specific performance, and injunctive relief against the City. During the course of this lawsuit and documents produced by Perfect Union following a motion to compel, the City has become aware of additional grounds supporting termination and rescission of the Development Agreement. The City Attorney recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance confirming termination and recission of the Development Agreement with Perfect Union to document these additional grounds.

Issue and Discussion:

City Council Ordinance No. 2021-1155 terminated the Development Agreement on the grounds that Perfect Union breached the Development Agreement by failing to obtain all approvals and be open for business by the deadline of February 13, 2021. In addition to this reason to terminate the Development Agreement, which remains a valid ground on its own to support termination, two additional grounds have since come to light.

First, Perfect Union’s lack of legal or equitable interest in the subject property at the time the Development Agreement was executed and was to become effective is not a breach that could be cured under Government Code section 64865(a) of the Development Agreement Law, including as interpreted by a 2022 Court of Appeal case from the Third Appellate District, which is the district that decides appeals arising out of the El Dorado County Superior Court. Section 64865(a) requires that a developer have a legal or equitable interest in the real property to be developed at the time a city enters into a development agreement and the development agreement becomes effective. In Mitracos v. City of Tracy, 2022 WL 1536636 (Cal. Third App. Dist. May 16, 2022), the court held that a development agreement which purports to apply to property for which the developer had no legal or equitable interest at the time the development agreement was executed and purportedly became effective is void.
1066
City Council Agenda Report- June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 3
Section 2.4.4 of the Development Agreement required Perfect Union to represent and warranty that it “has a legal, possessory or other equitable interest in the Property.” Although Perfect Union had made this representation and submitted with its original application a real estate letter of intent from property owner Michael McKeen to lease 2227 James Ave., Suite 5 to Perfect Union SLT, LLC, Mr. McKeen also entered into a Side Letter Agreement with lessees Melissa Sanchez and Rick Lobley, who are not listed as owners or members of Perfect Union SLT, LLC, stating that “Lessor and Lessee agree that . . . the [real estate letter of intent] has no effect on the terms of the lease” and is “null and void.” (See Exhibit B to the attached Ordinance.) Perfect Union has never provided any contrary evidence to show it had a legal or equitable interest in the subject property when the Development Agreement was executed, or on before its effective date. Thus, the evidence shows Perfect Union did not actually have the requisite legal or equitable interest in the subject property when the Development Agreement was entered into or on or before its effective date.

Second, Perfect Union produced documents showing that local owners Scott Peters and Leon Abravanel had arranged to transfer the ownership in the business before any application was even submitted to the City, in violation of the Development Agreement and City Code. Specifically, the documents produced during discovery show that on April 4, 2019, the day before Perfect Union submitted its application for the Development Agreement to the City, Peters and Abravanel executed a Conditional Assignment of Membership Interest in which they agreed to convey 95 percent of their membership interest in Perfect Union to SLT James, LLC and MWG Holdings Group, Inc. upon issuance of a City license. (See Exhibit C to the attached Ordinance.) This appears to have been a fraudulent attempt to structure ownership to achieve the maximum number of points for local ownership at the time the development agreement applications were scored without actually having any local ownership in effect by the time the business began operating. While this ownership transfer does not appear to have been consummated, Perfect Union continued to pursue an unauthorized transfer.

The documents produced during discovery in the lawsuit also show that on November 25, 2020 (the same day that Perfect Union applied for an amendment to its Development Agreement to extend the time to open for business and change ownership or control to a different entity), Peters and Abravanel executed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Membership Interest in which Peters and Abravanel agreed to sell 99 percent of their interest in Perfect Union to 2227 SLT LLC, an entity for which Melissa Sanchez signed as the Manager, for $100,000. (See Exhibit D to the attached Ordinance.) Section 10.1 of the Development Agreement prohibits unauthorized sale, assignment, or transfer of interests in the cannabis business, and states that “any assignment or transfer prohibited by this Agreement will be considered an immediate breach of this Agreement and City may elect to immediately terminate this Agreement.” Additionally, the transfer or attempted transfer of ownership or control of a cannabis business without obtaining approval from the City is void and results in the affected Cannabis Use Permit being deemed revoked under South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.55.740(C).

Financial Implications:

Under the Development Agreement, Perfect Union agreed to provide the City with a community benefit fee of 6 percent of gross receipts and to provide additional community benefits described in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement including educational and after-school programs for children to prevent cannabis use. Because Perfect Union failed to open for business, the City and community have not realized any financial benefits from the Development Agreement. The proposed ordinance does not have any financial implications. 1067
City Council Agenda Report- June 20, 2023 Page 3 of 3
Environmental Considerations:

This action is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

Policy Implications:

None.
1068
Ordinance 2023-XXX June 20, 2023 Page 1 of 5
Ordinance 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
June 20, 2023
An Ordinance Confirming Termination and Rescission of Development Agreement with Perfect Union SLT, LLC

FINDINGS
A. On April 5, 2019, Perfect Union SLT, LLC (“Perfect Union”) submitted an application to the City for a development agreement to operate a cannabis microbusiness. Perfect Union’s application included a “binding letter of intent to lease” the property at 2227 James Avenue, Suite 5 (“Property”), which was signed by owner Michael McKeen and purported lessee Perfect Union. If this evidence of owner consent had not been included in the application, Perfect Union’s application would have been deemed incomplete under the Development Agreement Application, Evaluation, and Selection Procedures and Evaluation Criteria adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2019-003. Furthermore, Government Code section 64865(a) of the Development Agreement Law requires that a developer have a legal or equitable interest in the real property to be developed at the time a city enters into a development agreement and the development agreement becomes effective. See also Mitracos v. City of Tracy, 2022 WL 1536636 (Cal. Third App. Dist. May 16, 2022) (a development agreement which purports to apply to property for which the developer had no legal or equitable interest at the time the development agreement was executed and purportedly became effective is void) (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).

B. In its application for a development agreement, Perfect Union indicated that “[t]he business is 100% owned by two local residents and business owners. Leon Abravanel and Scott Peters each own 50% of the business.” If Perfect Union had not represented that it was owned by one or more three-year residents or business owners within the boundaries of the City of South Lake Tahoe, it would not have received the maximum number of points for local ownership (9 points out of 100 total) in the scoring rubric under the Development Agreement Application/Proposal Requirements and Evaluation Criteria adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2019-003.

C. On November 14, 2019, the Planning Commission issued a Cannabis Use Permit to Perfect Union for the operation of a cannabis microbusiness at the Property, and recommended that City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a Development Agreement with Perfect Union, by adoption of Resolution No. 2019-27.
1069
Ordinance 2023-XXX June 20, 2023 Page 2 of 5
D. On January 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2020-1137 approving a Development Agreement with Perfect Union in accordance with the Development Agreement Law, California Government Code sections 65864-65869.5, and South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.55.790. The Development Agreement provides that its effective date was February 13, 2020.

E. Section 3.5 of the Development Agreement required Perfect Union to obtain all Subsequent Approvals and open for business by February 13, 2021. Perfect Union did not meet this deadline. Subsequent Approvals not obtained by the deadline included a Certificate of Occupancy for the tenant improvements, issuance of a Public Safety License, and a state license to operate a cannabis microbusiness.

F. On November 25, 2020, Melissa Sanchez, on behalf of Perfect Union, submitted an application to amend the Development Agreement to extend the opening deadline by 12 months, and subsequently amended the application to shorten the requested extension to six months. The application also requested a change of ownership or control from Perfect Union to James Tahoe LLC.

G. On January 14, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Perfect Union’s request. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-02, recommending that City Council not adopt an ordinance to amend the Development Agreement to extend the opening deadline by six months or allow a change in ownership or control of Perfect Union.

H. Perfect Union appealed the Planning Commission’s action, which appeal was heard and denied by the City Council on March 2, 2021, by adoption of Resolution No. 2021-011.

I. On February 10, 2021, Perfect Union requested a 120-day permitted delay under Section 12.3 of the Development Agreement, which the City Attorney denied in a response dated February 11, 2021, because the stated reasons for Perfect Union’s failure to obtain the Subsequent Approvals and open for business by February 13, 2021 did not meet the definition of “permitted delay” under the Development Agreement.

J. On March 3, 2021, the City Attorney sent a Notice of Breach to Perfect Union under Section

11.1 of the Development Agreement, providing 30 days to cure before proceeding with remedies including withholding of permits and termination of the Development Agreement. The Notice of Breach cited Perfect Union’s breach of the following sections of the Development Agreement: (1) Section 3.5 (Development Timing) for failing to obtain the Subsequent Approvals and open for business by February 13, 2021; (2) Section 2.4.4 (Developer Representations and Warranties) for misrepresenting that Perfect Union was the lessee of the Property when, in fact, a Side Letter Agreement executed by Melissa Sanchez and Rick Lobley (who were themselves actually the lessees of the Property and not listed as owners or members of Perfect Union), and owner Michael McKeen, dated April 4, 2019, the day before Perfect Union submitted its application to the City), stated that the Real Estate Letter of Intent 1070
Ordinance 2023-XXX June 20, 2023 Page 3 of 5
between McKeen and Perfect Union is “null and void” (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”); and (3) Section 4.4.1 (Public Safety Impact Mitigation Fee) for failing to timely pay the fee.

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilJune 20, 2023

South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 20, 2023