Could Connecticut set a 60 mph limit on a highway suitable for more than 55 but less than 65 mph?

Plain-English summary

In July 1998, Connecticut’s AG advised that the State Traffic Commission lacked authority under Public Act 98-181 to set an intermediate speed limit, such as 60 mph, on a multilane limited-access state highway. Before the act, the statutory and regulatory maximum was 55 mph. The new act directed the commission to establish 65 mph on highways suitable for that speed, considering design, surrounding population and traffic flow. It did not say “up to” 65 mph or create a range above 55.

The transportation department had pointed out that some roads might safely support 60 mph but not 65 mph. The AG acknowledged that practical issue while reading the actual delegation narrowly. Legislative history reinforced the wording: lawmakers had removed “may” and “up to” from an earlier form of the bill. For a highway not suitable for 65 mph, the opinion found no new authority to choose a number between the old maximum and 65. It addressed the 1998 act as enacted, not later speed-limit amendments.

Traffic officials at the time

The AG read suitability for 65 mph as the condition for raising the posted limit under this act. An engineering judgment favoring 60 mph did not itself create statutory power to set it.

Drivers at the time

The opinion concerned the commission’s authority to post a limit, not an individualized defense to a speeding charge.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the act permit a 60 mph compromise?
A: No. The AG said it authorized 65 mph for suitable highways and did not grant intermediate authority.

Q: Was 65 mph mandatory on every multilane limited-access highway?
A: No. The commission first had to determine that the highway or section was suitable for that speed.

Q: Why did the words “shall” and “65” matter?
A: The AG said they directed a specific limit once suitability was found, instead of granting discretion over a range.

Background and statutory framework

The transportation commissioner asked about a road suitable for more than 55 but less than 65 mph. The AG interpreted the commission’s general speed-setting provision alongside the 1998 act’s specific direction.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-218a(a); P.A. No. 98-181.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1998-formal-opinions/honorable-james-f-sullivan-department-of-transportation-1998009-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-c

Original opinion text

Honorable James F. Sullivan, Department of Transportation, 1998-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

July 9, 1998

Honorable James F. Sullivan

Department of Transportation

2800 Berlin Turnpike

Newington, CT 06131

Dear Commissioner Sullivan:

This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 1998, in which you request our opinion regarding the scope of authority delegated to the State Traffic Commission ("Commission") to establish speed limits on multiple lane, limited access state highways. More specifically, you ask whether or not the Commission has the authority to establish a speed limit above fifty-five (55) miles per hour but less than the sixty-five (65) miles per hour maximum speed limit set forth in Conn. Public Acts No. 98-181, Sec. 1. In our opinion, the Commission has not been given such authority in P.A. No. 98-181.

The General Statutes of Connecticut provide, in part, that "[t]he State Traffic Commission may determine speed limits which are reasonable and safe on any state highway, bridge or parkway built or maintained by the state, and differing limits may be established for different types of vehicles, and may erect or cause to be erected signs indicating such speeds limits." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-218a(a). Prior to the enactment of P.A. No. 98-181, the Commission's authority to establish such speed limits was restricted by the legislature to a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-219(a)(2) (Revised to 1997); see also, Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 14-298-235 ("The maximum speed limit for all vehicles on limited access state highways shall be 55 miles per hour."). In the 1998 Session of the General Assembly, however, the legislature modified the 55 miles per hour maximum speed limitation for certain highways. According to Section 1 of P.A. No. 98-181: "The State Traffic Commission shall establish a speed limit of sixty-five miles per hour on any multiple lane, limited access highways that are suitable for a speed limit of sixty-five miles per hour, taking into consideration relevant factors including design, population of area and traffic flow."

With respect to the above-quoted language of P.A. No. 98-181, you have indicated that certain multiple lane limited access highways, or sections thereof, might be suitable to accommodate traffic speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour but not a 65 miles per hour limit. For example, certain highways might reasonably handle traffic at 60 miles per hour. This being the case, you pose the question as to whether the Commission has the authority, consistent with P.A. 98-181, to establish a speed limit between 55 and 65 miles per hour -- e.g., 60 miles per hour -- for those highways that are not suitable for a speed limit of 65 miles per hour.

In addressing your question regarding the scope of authority delegated to the Commission in P.A. No. 98-181, we are guided by certain well-established principles of statutory construction. "The starting point in any case involving a question of statutory construction must be the language used by the legislature." Nickel Mine Brook Associates v. Joseph E. Sakal, P.C., 217 Conn. 361, 364, 584 A.2d 1210 (1991). "If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need look no further than the words actually used because we assume that the language expresses the legislature's intent." Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control, 234 Conn. 624, 642, 662 A.2d 1251 (1995).

Here the language of P.A. No. 98-181 expresses a clear legislative intent that the Commission is to survey the multiple lane limited access highways which traverse the state with an eye towards increasing the speed limits on these highways if appropriate. If the Commission determines that a particular highway, or portion thereof, is suitable for a speed limit of 65 miles per hour, the legislature has further directed the Commission to establish such a speed limit on the highway. That is, the legislature has stated that the Commission "shall" rather than "may" establish a 65 miles per hour speed limit if the highway is suitable for such speed. Moreover, the language in the public act does not provide that the Commission can set a speed limit "up to" 65 miles per hour; rather the public act specifies 65 miles per hour. Thus, the plain language of the public act argues against the Commission having the authority to establish an intermediate speed limit.

Our opinion also finds support in the legislative history of P.A. 98-181. For example, Representative Simmons (43rd Dist.), who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, made the following comments on the bill, as amended, which became P.A. No. 98-181:

Essentially what Senate Amendment "A" did was eliminate the specific references to the specific roads. In my opinion and in the opinion of LCO, that does not change the roads that will be eligible under these criteria. And these criteria include road design, population of area, and traffic flow. And for example, in the federal guidelines they limited the higher speeds to rural areas located outside of urbanized areas of 50,000 or more which met certain criteria. So, I believe that the language incorporates the very concerns that several of the previous speakers had. If you look at it carefully, it says the State Traffic Commission shall establish a speed limit of 65 miles per hour. When we original did the bill we said "may" and we said "up to". But I'm told by the attorneys that the language under Senate Amendment "A" continues to have the requisite protections. Nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that we would be prepared to add some language to the tech reviso bill if this continues to be a problem.

In sum, it is our opinion that P.A. 98-181 does not authorize the State Traffic Commission to establish speed limits on multiple lane limited access highways that fall between 55 miles per hour and 65 miles per hour.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Cornelius F. Tuohy

Assistant Attorney General

RB:CFT:rwg