New changes to state law would make it much easier for Newton to lower speed limits.
One of the changes to come out of the flurry of last-minute legislating on Beacon Hill allows cities and towns to reduce a street’s speed limit to 25 MPH without getting state approval. Previously, state law required approval for lowering the speed limit below 30 MPH. Additionally, the legislature created a new law that allows municipalities to create 20 MPH “safety zones,” again without requiring state approval.
The speed limit on secondary roads in Newton, except where posted, is 30 MPH. Lowering the speed limit is a perennial request for neighborhoods looking to reduce the negative impact of car traffic. The equally perennial city response has been:
- The city can’t lower speed limits without state approval
- State approval is generally granted only if the 85th percentile of current traffic speeds is below 30 MPH, which obviates the need for a lower limit
- Lower speed limits don’t do that much — on their own — to reduce traffic speeds
The new law takes care of the first two points. The Newton City Council should immediately and forthwith take up a bill to reduce the city speed limit to 25 MPH on secondary roads.
Notwithstanding my suggestion, the third point still stands. Lowering speed limits does not, generally, lower speed, not without a level of sustained enforcement that is simply not practical. Motorists drive the speed that’s comfortable, which is why speed-limit compliance is so low. Roadway design determines the speed of traffic. To slow traffic, we need to make changes to the physical roadway: speed humps, chicanes, tighter curb radii, &c.
But, lowering the city speed limit on secondary roads to 25 MPH, now authorized by the state, is a good statement of the city’s priorities and values. We want safer streets. We want streets that can be enjoyed for many uses. We want slower traffic.
An alternative to enforcement is to increase parking on side streets as a traffic calming measure. Changing the parking regulations to allow longer term parking around village centers could help merchants and their staff along with reducing speeds.
It’s about time. I completely agree with Sean. The city should move to lower the speed limits on secondary roads immediately. It should have been done years ago. This is yet one more example of how state law often disregards local need. The problem is, we have too much government and more often than not it works against our best interests. I’ll be voting for the Anarchist candidates this November.
Mike,
You realize, of course, that speed limits require a robust government for both setting and enforcing. Should you be successful in electing an anarchist come November, all speed limits would be in jeopardy of being lifted. At the least, expect enforcement to dramatically decrease.
Ironically, as a practical matter, I expect this latest change to reduce local exceptions to what will likely become the de facto state rule.
I live on a street with a 25 speed limit now. I’d say the average is 40. I would love to see some enforcement. If the city wants to make some money put speed traps on Derby St.
As a driver, I’m kind of on the slow side, so maybe motorists will stop honking when I go at just above the current speed limit. There was a time during the 40’s and 50’s when nobody would drive faster than 20 MPH on Lincoln Street between Woodward and Walnut. Of course, there was a functioning elementary school then and that may have contributed to the slower speed on that particular stretch of roadway, but I’m pretty certain that everyone drove slower throughout the village. We knew each other then, but that’s no longer the case. Actually, I’d say that 90 percent of the drivers I encounter are courteous, but that other 10 percent are over the top. I shouldn’t stereotype, but a lot of the worst offenders drive a Lexus SUV or any kind of BMW and a goodly number of these seem to congregate in the Highlands Village on Lincoln Street around noontime.
Forgive me, I’m not that excited. First of all, it’s a myth that speed traps make money for the police. It’s actually a losing proposition, between the time spent collecting and battling tickets in court, and the fact that revenues go into the general fund and not to the po-po. Second, even if the police had the resources to set up speed traps everywhere, it’s unclear that speed traps have any lasting effect. Without the enforcement piece, speed limits are just a suggestion, and this bill may have taken away any objective basis for establishing them. I’m not a big fan of the 85th% rule, but at least it is (was?) a standard to follow.
Changing the default speed limit for the city, if the bill allows it, seems harmless. 25 is no more arbitrary than 30 was. But the only thing that would change is the way we look at speeding. What was 9 miles over the limit would become 14. Perhaps that will increase the demand for traffic calming and give the rationale for lower design speeds. But traffic calming is still anathema to a lot of people around here.
But to Sean’s point, all that really matters are the road conditions. On-street parking, street trees, street width, turn radii, other traffic calming techniques. Those are the things that will make a difference in speed, especially the ones in granite and concrete. Unfortunately, those sorts of changes do not come easily around here.