1 – “I found much to be said about your argument.” That was a compliment.

2 – Traffic laws and regulations are as much about politics as well as planning. Good politics will always trump good planning. Therefore I proposed a political solution, like they have in Britain

3 – These people live and may die as a result of the engineering decision. They should be part of the process, just as the MUTCD is. The government ignored the people in the 50s and 60s when they just condemned all the minority neighborhoods to build freeways (or train stations or ballparks, etc). The government can’t exclude them now. Are they qualified to set limits? I don’t know. There may be a Caltrans Engineer in the neighborhood. But should they be excluded? (that is what I read into your post). Should Brayj not have any input as to what happens on the roads in his neighborhood?

4 – I’m all for having safety set speed limits (instead of engineering based) in residential neighborhoods and around schools and certain arterials based on local conditions. If the roads are designed for higher speeds, traffic calming should be done to reduce the speeds. Until the money is available for that, what is the solution? There are residential streets designed for 50 mph.

So once the engineering decision is made (the residential street is designed for 50 mph) the political decision is made. Do we
a) raise the speed limit to 50?
b) keep the speed limit at 25?
c) spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on traffic calming?

Frozen Chicken Bowling at the Capitol Building! wOOt!

I worked in development for a few years and these “public hearings” are kangaroo courts where logic, reason, justice, etc. rarely hold sway.

This state needs a scientific standard for pedestrian and bicycle safety, period. A public hearing is license for a dog and pony show, and does little to guarantee anybody’s safety.

An example of why this won’t work: residential streets (and all streets in LA where possible) are engineered to accept auto speeds well above the posted speed limit of 25, 35, or 55 mph. This passive safety design protocol does not take into account the lives and safety of non-auto road users. We need road designs that reflect pedestrian and bicyclists safety – these sorts of designs would include narrowed lanes, traffic calming devices and road diets. If engineers were given standards to uphold, they are actually quite clever people and would be able to meet those goals using these sorts of traffic control designs.

If so, there could be some 33 mph streets, some 34 mph streets, etc. Great work if you are a traffic engineering consultant. Very confusing if you are a driver as you have to change your speed from block to block. How do you resolve professional differences and opinions. One engineer’s 35 mph may be 25 mph to another.

The problem with the MUTCD is that no matter how hard it tries, it can’t take into account local conditions, hence your professional evaluation to set a local speed limit, based on your experience as a traffic engineer with the Manual, and your “subjective” view of the local area which you would determine by a site visit that may last anywhere from a few minutes to a few more minutes. I would think that would open you up to some significant liability in the case of a fatality. Oh, and would this involve consultation with local stakeholders, homeowners, etc?

Traffic speeds are already set by political considerations, removing the engineer’s liability. This is why all residential streets have an artificial 25 mph restriction even though some newer, wider residential streets could easily accommodate 45-50 from an engineering standpoint. The unpredictability of traffic, especially once you consider buses, playing children, bicycles, and the local characteristics is difficult to understand unless you live there.

England has an interesting way they do things.
The current speed limits in Britain are 30 mph in high population areas, 60 mph on [rural] single roads and 70 mph on motorways and dual roadways. Makes it quite simple for both the driver, and the engineer (who doesn’t have to design for a maximum theoretical speed). That doesn’t mean the driver will follow those limits, just like today, but it does provide easier enforcement..

With essentially only three speed limits, it’s relatively easy to follow.
According to the UPI, they are looking at reducing speeds in residential areas and around schools to 20 mph.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/18/Britain-cutting-speed-limit-for-safety/UPI-79551240078225/

Not by an ambiguous “local authority” that can decide the speed after a public meeting with out justification from a Traffic and Engineering Survey.

Selecting a location for a Traffic and Engineering Survey requires a professional to evaluate the area, and is not something that the general public can or should be involved in as it involves expert understanding of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines.