Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merced council reintroduces speed‑limit ordinance after narrow modifications
Summary
Following a technical speed study, the council reintroduced Ordinance 25‑84 changing posted speeds citywide but amended the staff recommendations to keep several segments (North Bear Creek M–G, Manchinett, and part of Olive Avenue) at existing limits and asked for additional monitoring; the ordinance reintroduction passed with two no votes.
After a lengthy public hearing and technical briefing, the Merced City Council voted on Dec. 15 to reintroduce Ordinance 25‑84, which amends the city’s posted speed limits based on a recent speed survey, but the council modified staff recommendations for several contested segments.
City staff and consultant Jose Fernandez of JLB Traffic Engineering presented a citywide study covering 237 segments that used standard spot speed and collision‑data methods guided by the California MUTCD. The consultant said many segments met technical criteria to be raised, lowered or remain unchanged; for one contested stretch he cited an 80th‑percentile speed near 48 mph.
Council members pressed staff on specific stretches where geometry, school and church activity, local construction and pedestrian crossings raised safety concerns: North Bear Creek Drive (M–G), Manchinett (Mansionette) and a segment of Olive Avenue. Councilmember Smith and others urged extra caution and recommended additional spot studies; the police chief warned that a city speed survey had lapsed and that without an updated survey radar enforcement cases may be harder to sustain in court.
Councilmember Nick Harris moved to accept the study with modifications keeping North Bear Creek (M–G), Manchinett, and Olive Avenue between R and M at their present limits and directing staff to restudy Manchinett (and to monitor the other contested segments). The motion passed; Councilmember DuPont and Mayor Serrato voted no.
The council's action reintroduces the ordinance for formal consideration with the council’s amendments; staff said the new posted limits likely would not take effect until February as the administrative process and signage are completed. The council asked staff to return with additional spot‑speed data on the flagged segments and noted the tradeoff between accurate posted speeds and the enforceability of radar citations in traffic court.
