Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Speed Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional planner outlines limits and trade-offs of a 25 mph municipal speed policy
Summary
A Central Mass Regional Planning Commission engineer told a Westborough committee that adopting a municipal 25 mph speed zone affects only “thickly settled” areas and does not override existing regulatory speed zones set by MassDOT; enforcement and speed‑study methods, and trade‑offs for roads such as Lyman Street and Otis Street, were discussed.
Jeff Holland, senior transportation and planning engineer at the Central Mass Regional Planning Commission, told the committee that Massachusetts recognizes two distinct kinds of speed limits: regulatory limits set by engineered speed studies and approved by MassDOT and the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and statutory limits set by Chapter 90 §17. "Regulatory speed limits are established by speed studies and then get approved by both MassDOT and the Registry of Motor Vehicles," Holland said, noting Westborough currently has six roads with regulatory speed zones, including Flanders Road, Otis Street, Lyman Street and portions of Route 30.
Holland explained that a town-level adoption of a 25 mph municipal speed zone applies only inside areas that meet the legal definition of "thickly settled." "It is only within thickly settled areas and in areas that do not have a regulatory speed," he said, adding that a regulatory speed zone "trumps" a statutory or municipal posting where the two conflict. He emphasized that the municipal sign at a town line is commonly misunderstood to mean the whole town is 25 mph when in fact the statutory rules apply by location and road ownership.
Committee members pressed Holland on practical effects, including enforcement and cost. Holland described standard speed‑study methodology—placing counters or "tubes" for non‑peak periods and using the 85th‑percentile speed to justify regulatory changes—and warned that submitting results to MassDOT can sometimes lead to an increase rather than a decrease in a posted limit. "If you submit it to MassDOT, MassDOT's then obligated to go and you may end up with a speed higher than what you want," he said. He also noted that radar enforcement differs by limit type: in statutory speed areas police generally cannot use radar and must follow a vehicle for up to an eighth of a mile before issuing a ticket.
The presentation covered implementation issues local departments typically face: new signage (including a Mass General Law citation placard now being required beneath certain speed signs), grant programs that may supply some compliant signs at no cost, and the resource burden on police and public works for posting, maintenance, and enforcement. Rob Raymond of CMRPC added that MassDOT has a program that in some cases supplies up to 10 sign placards to help towns comply with new signage requirements.
Members raised local examples: concerns about Lyman Street near Lake Chauncy and recent housing developments, the configuration and presence of sidewalks at Westborough High School, and whether traffic‑calming design changes (chicanes, narrowing lanes, raised crossings) are more effective than simply changing the posted limit. Holland and Raymond encouraged a careful, evidence‑based approach—first collecting current speed data with tubes or stealth radar, reviewing the 85th‑percentile speeds, and then deciding whether to commission a formal study or pursue safety zones or targeted traffic‑calming measures.
The committee asked staff to pursue initial speed data collection and follow up with CMRPC about conducting or scheduling a formal study if warranted. The presentation concluded with an offer from CMRPC to provide initial data-collection support and design examples for demonstration projects.
