Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Claremont commission questions citywide 2026 speed survey as staff plans special meeting before council review
Loading...
Summary
The Traffic and Transportation Commission reviewed a consultant's 2026 citywide speed survey recommending reduced posted speeds on roughly half of evaluated segments, flagged data and segmenting errors, and voted to schedule a special meeting for staff to revisit specific segments before sending the proposal and an estimated $175,000 implementation budget to city council.
The Claremont Traffic and Transportation Commission on Wednesday scrutinized a consultant's proposed 2026 speed survey that would lower posted speeds on dozens of city segments and asked staff to reexamine several contested locations before the item goes to city council.
The commission's review followed a presentation by John Dorado of Advantech Consulting Engineers and staff associate engineer Vincent Ramos. Dorado summarized the study and its results, saying, "For this updated version 2026, we evaluated 95 roadway segments. 48 of the segments had no changes. 45 we'd recommend to reduce 5 miles per hour. 2 segments reduced 10 miles per hour, and there's no increase across the city." Staff estimated about $175,000 to implement new signs and pavement markings.
The nut graph: The item drew sustained questioning from commissioners about apparent typographical errors in the draft report, the logic of splitting continuous streets into adjacent segments with different limits, and which crash and volume data were used to justify reductions. Commissioners directed staff to return with targeted revisions and additional analysis at a special meeting scheduled within the next two weeks, and to include issues raised tonight in the staff report to council.
Commissioners identified several issues in the draft. One example discussed at length was Mills Avenue (the presenter acknowledged a typographical error and said the back-up "spec book" would be updated). Commissioners also questioned why Miramar Avenue and stretches of First Street were split into contiguous segments with different recommended limits; the consultant said some splits reflect prior surveys and segment boundaries, and staff said they would reassess whether segments could be combined.
There was debate about the data sources the consultant used. Commissioners asked whether crash history came from police-department reports or the state's SWITRS/DMV data; consultant and staff said PD records were used because they can be more up to date, although SWITRS is also a source. Commissioners also asked whether bicycle counts were recorded; the consultant said the speed survey relied on vehicle samples (a 100-vehicle sample to compute the 80th-percentile free-flow speed) and that bicycle and pedestrian conditions were considered qualitatively through land-use and local knowledge under AB 43 criteria.
Legal and policy context informed the discussion. Commissioners pressed staff on when the additional 5-mph reduction allowed under Assembly Bill 43 can be used and whether the city must designate sections as "safety corridors" by ordinance to apply that further reduction. Staff said the AB 43 implementation guidance and the MUTCD provide tools to consider vulnerable road users but that council ordinances may be required to formalize special designations.
On timing, staff outlined the next steps: the commission's recommendation, a city-council hearing (two readings), and a 6-to-8-week procurement period if council authorizes the work; staff estimated sign production and installations could occur later this summer if council approves the budget and contract.
A motion to schedule a special meeting devoted to the speed-survey item passed after debate; commissioners who objected said they lacked confidence in some segment decisions and wanted staff to revisit the samples and contiguous-segment logic before the council hearing. The exact vote breakdown was recorded during the meeting roll call and the commission directed staff to include the meeting comments and revised justifications in the staff report to council.
What happens next: staff will prepare a revised staff report that addresses typographical corrections, segment-merge opportunities and the specific segment concerns raised tonight, then present the item to city council for ordinance adoption of posted speed limits and budget authorization for implementation. The commission also received assurance that staff would provide updated backing data for questioned locations.
Commissioners who questioned the approach emphasized a practical standard: changes should be data-driven and not applied wholesale simply because the law allows new options. Supporters of the study noted the value of applying recent tools to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The commission continued the item for a forthcoming special meeting so those issues can be resolved before council consideration.
