News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Are 75 m.p.h. speed limits finally coming to Washington State?

Started by Thunderbyrd316, February 27, 2016, 07:23:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kkt

I wonder if we are from the same city.  In the one I live in, the persistent drizzle extends to mid-July.  Often there's a dry week or so in late May, but then it's back to drizzle.

The downpours here are rare, much rarer than the midwest or east.


jakeroot

Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
I wonder if we are from the same city.  In the one I live in, the persistent drizzle extends to mid-July.  Often there's a dry week or so in late May, but then it's back to drizzle.

Scott Sistek (out of KOMO) wrote a blog about this a couple years ago. Here's a monthly breakdown of "hours a day/days a week":

Quote
January & February: 7/4
March: 6/4
April: 5/3
May: 4/3
June: 4/2
July & August: 4/1
September: 4/2
October: 5/3
November & December: 7/4

Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
The downpours here are rare, much rarer than the midwest or east.

Well of course, we don't get those huge thunderstorms rolling through every five days. But we do have heavy rain with hail once every month or two. Hell, there was a thunderstorm with heavy wind and hail just this last Sunday here in Tacoma. The storm drains were backing up.

kkt

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2016, 05:15:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
I wonder if we are from the same city.  In the one I live in, the persistent drizzle extends to mid-July.  Often there's a dry week or so in late May, but then it's back to drizzle.
Scott Sistek (out of KOMO) wrote a blog about this a couple years ago. Here's a monthly breakdown of "hours a day/days a week":
Quote
January & February: 7/4
March: 6/4
April: 5/3
May: 4/3
June: 4/2
July & August: 4/1
September: 4/2
October: 5/3
November & December: 7/4

Cliff Mass has written about this too:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/02/seattle-and-western-washington-has.html
QuoteI like to tell folks that typically spring begins in western Washington the third week in February (let's say Feb. 25th) and ends in mid-July (local meteorologists like to use July 13th).  Look outside now:  flowers are blooming everywhere, weeds are growing, and the grass is getting longer.   After Feb 25th, the chances of major flooding, low-level snow, and strong windstorms plummet.  And we all know that June is often cloudy and cool and we don't make the real transition to reliable summer weather until mid-July. A spring of 4.5 months.


jakeroot

Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 06:26:36 PM
Cliff Mass has written about this too:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/02/seattle-and-western-washington-has.html
QuoteI like to tell folks that typically spring begins in western Washington the third week in February (let's say Feb. 25th) and ends in mid-July (local meteorologists like to use July 13th).  Look outside now:  flowers are blooming everywhere, weeds are growing, and the grass is getting longer.   After Feb 25th, the chances of major flooding, low-level snow, and strong windstorms plummet.  And we all know that June is often cloudy and cool and we don't make the real transition to reliable summer weather until mid-July. A spring of 4.5 months.

My point is simply that the rain starts to die down after April.

Thunderbyrd316

   I prefer to sum up our weather here in the Pacific Northwest like this: July 5th to the Thursday before Labor Day, hot and sunny with an occasional thunderstorm, Labor Day weekend through July 4th, damp, dark, dreary and generally depressing!  :pan:

   Actually some years the weather can stay surprisingly nice deep into October or even November some years, a phenomenon we generally refer to as "Indian Summer". Otherwise, the rainy season can start as early as September and drag all the way through June with the odd few days here and there of nice, sunny weather OR the occasional ice storm or inch or so of snow. (Warning:West Coast drivers are notoriously frightening drivers in even the slightest bit of snow!)   

   Of course east of the mountains is a whole different story as it is mostly desert over there.

Kacie Jane

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on March 01, 2016, 09:52:04 AMThe speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154...

Why are you keeping it 60 through JBLM, but raising it through Downtown Tacoma???  I'm of the apparently controversial opinion that speed limits are fine as they are (though I don't get to Eastern Washington that often), but if I had written that post, I probably would have said from 112-127 and 135-154 instead.

jakeroot

Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 02, 2016, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on March 01, 2016, 09:52:04 AMThe speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154...

Why are you keeping it 60 through JBLM, but raising it through Downtown Tacoma???  I'm of the apparently controversial opinion that speed limits are fine as they are (though I don't get to Eastern Washington that often), but if I had written that post, I probably would have said from 112-127 and 135-154 instead.

I see no reason to change where the current limits go up. Add 5 to all current limits, and call it good. 65 in urban areas. 75 in rural areas.

I support an increase in urban areas, because I support an increase in rural areas. I don't like differentials of more than 10 miles/hour, so the limit should be bumped to 65 to keep within that threshold.

kkt

I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.

jakeroot

Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.

What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?

kkt

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?

No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds.  But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.

Brandon

Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?

No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds.  But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.

Citation & source?
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

kkt

Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?

No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds.  But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.

Citation & source?

Widely known.  By googling "freeway capacity by speed" the first page of hits included
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html
which has a nice chart of speed range vs. lane capacity.
That page in turn cites Homburger, Kell and Perkins, 1992, which I am not finding online.

jakeroot

Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?

No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds.  But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.

Citation & source?

Widely known.  By googling "freeway capacity by speed" the first page of hits included
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html
which has a nice chart of speed range vs. lane capacity.
That page in turn cites Homburger, Kell and Perkins, 1992, which I am not finding online.

Do people actually leave more room at 80 than at 60 or 55? I know they should, but I'm not sure they do. That study seems to be based on math instead of real-world observations, which I suspect would instead show a minimal change in following distance at 80 vs a lower freeway limit.

Alps

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.

What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
Everyone below me (or above me depending on your view) is wrong. Or right, but misstating it. Plain and simple: 70 MPH free-flow speed is the highest theoretical capacity. Higher than that, doesn't matter. Speed limit doesn't matter. If the speed limit is 65 and everyone is going 70 or more in free-flow conditions, the road is optimal. If you sign it at 70 or 75, even better. When the free-flow speed is 70, the actual speed at capacity is closer to 55 MPH or even lower. But if your free-flow speed is 55, you won't be close to even 45 at capacity and therefore your capacity will be lower. Questions?

Alps

Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate.  Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?

No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds.  But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.

Citation & source?

Widely known.  By googling "freeway capacity by speed" the first page of hits included
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html
which has a nice chart of speed range vs. lane capacity.
That page in turn cites Homburger, Kell and Perkins, 1992, which I am not finding online.

No, that is the wrong source. Use this:

http://www.hcmguide.com/Case4/pop-upterms/ex_23-3.jpg

When your free-flow speed is 70-75 mph, your capacity is 2400 cars/hour/lane. Your actual speed is 50-55 mph at capacity, but if your free-flow speed is only 55 mph, you hit capacity sooner and at lower speed.

kwellada

Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

I've driven the portions of Idaho and Wyoming that allow 80 MPH.  The thing I've discovered is that unlike 70 or 75, I suddenly feel no need to go any faster than 80 MPH.  For rural, relatively straight freeways, 80 MPH is just fine and I would never ever come close to getting a ticket again. 

Duke87

Quote from: kwellada on March 04, 2016, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

I've driven the portions of Idaho and Wyoming that allow 80 MPH.  The thing I've discovered is that unlike 70 or 75, I suddenly feel no need to go any faster than 80 MPH.  For rural, relatively straight freeways, 80 MPH is just fine and I would never ever come close to getting a ticket again.

This. Speed limit 80 and enforced as such is a much fairer setup than speed limit 70 but you won't get stopped for less than 10 over unless the cop is having a bad day. The point of raising speed limits is not to allow people to drive faster, it's to make the speed people are already driving legal so they can do so without fear of being stopped for revenue enhancement purposes.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

TEG24601

Quote from: Duke87 on March 06, 2016, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: kwellada on March 04, 2016, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

I've driven the portions of Idaho and Wyoming that allow 80 MPH.  The thing I've discovered is that unlike 70 or 75, I suddenly feel no need to go any faster than 80 MPH.  For rural, relatively straight freeways, 80 MPH is just fine and I would never ever come close to getting a ticket again.

This. Speed limit 80 and enforced as such is a much fairer setup than speed limit 70 but you won't get stopped for less than 10 over unless the cop is having a bad day. The point of raising speed limits is not to allow people to drive faster, it's to make the speed people are already driving legal so they can do so without fear of being stopped for revenue enhancement purposes.


Not only that, but it is also to reduce the speed differential between drivers obeying the law, and those speeding; as well as making people more acutely aware of the likely speed of drivers.  There are some places where the speed limits have been artificially reduced, and drivers ignore the speed limit, which may be the source of accidents due to "goodie-goodies" only running at the limit or people being unaware of the actual speed.  I live on a road that used to be 35, currently 25, but drivers are often at 50+.  I'm trying to get the limit raised to 35, simply because the higher speed may not be accurate to what drivers are actually driving, but would make other road users aware that the vehicles are already going much faster than expected.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

mrsman

Speed limits should be based on scientific criteria like lane width, number of lanes, distance between intersections, number of driveways,  and other road factors (stop signs, signals, curves, etc.) If this is not possible, then the speed limit should be based on 85th percentile speed

Speed limits should not be based on politics.

One very vivid example of what not to do is the following:  Burton Way serves as the border between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles between Robertson and Doheny.  It is a very wide divided street.  Eastbound in Beverly Hills is limited to 25 mph.  Westbound in Los Angeles is 35 mph.  There is no reason why the street should have different speed limits along this stretch other than BH wanting to impose a lower limit.  35 is fine for both directions.

Thunderbyrd316

Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 02, 2016, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on March 01, 2016, 09:52:04 AMThe speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154...

Why are you keeping it 60 through JBLM, but raising it through Downtown Tacoma???  I'm of the apparently controversial opinion that speed limits are fine as they are (though I don't get to Eastern Washington that often), but if I had written that post, I probably would have said from 112-127 and 135-154 instead.

Sorry for the error. That was supposed to say "138 to 154" NOT "128". I was referring to the segment between Fife and South Center. 

Thunderbyrd316

   W.S.D.O.T. is now taking comments on the proposed implementation of a 75 m.p.h. speed limit on I-90 in eastern Washington. Here is the link to the wsdot web site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/

   I have already sent the following comment to the e-mail address noted at the bottom: dornfem@wsdot.wa.gov

   "Greetings: I am writing to comment on proposed increases to highway speed limits in Washington State. As a frequent user of Washington highways I strongly urge that the following reasonable speed limit increases be implemented.

   75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 89 to mile post 101 and mile post 206 to mile post 226, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270.

   65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 138 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195.

   Other outer suburban freeways such as S.R. 3, S.R. 16, I-90 on the east sides of the Seattle and Spokane metro areas, S.R. 167 and S.R. 512 should also be considered for increases to 65 m.p.h.

   Also, "split" speed limits for trucks should be eliminated except on mountainous or curvy multi-lane highways where autos can safely navigate at higher speeds and have ample room for overtaking. They should especially be eliminated on 2 lane highways where they make driving considerably more dangerous.

   Please also know that so-called "science" that purports to suggest that higher speed limits either use more fuel or increase so-called "greenhouse gasses" have been debunked as the junk science that they are.

   As a final note, 2 days ago the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a "study" that purported to show that speed limit increases "may" be responsible for additional highway fatalities. Let me be very clear that not only is this study flawed and intentionally misleading but it's author has a history of falsifying "reports" of this nature in the past. The IIHS is an arm of the insurance lobby and as such has a vested interest in keeping speed limits as low as possible so that rates can be raised on drivers who receive tickets for driving at perfectly safe and reasonable speeds.

   Thank you for taking the time to review these comments.

   Sincerely, D. Richard Jones, Clackamas, Oregon"

   I urge everyone else on here to submit your comments and, if possible, attend the meetings noted on the wsdot web site. They are a bit far away for me but perhaps there are others on here who live closer to Ritzville or Moses Lake.

myosh_tino

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 01:53:10 PM
   75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 89 to mile post 101 and mile post 206 to mile post 226, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130.

   65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 138 to mile post 154

Boy, that looks like a ton of speed limit changes for a single freeway.  Not knowing what the current limits on I-5 are here are the individual zones...


MP  0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)


Having speed limits change that much that frequently is a big issue IMO, especially the 75 MPH zones that are less than 20 miles in length.

With that said, I have no idea what the current limits are on the segments that I labeled <current limit>.  If someone from that area can provide me with that info, I'll gladly modify my speed zone table.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Thunderbyrd316

#47
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 01:53:10 PM
   75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 89 to mile post 101 and mile post 206 to mile post 226, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130.

   65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 138 to mile post 154

Boy, that looks like a ton of speed limit changes for a single freeway.  Not knowing what the current limits on I-5 are here are the individual zones...


MP  0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)


Having speed limits change that much that frequently is a big issue IMO, especially the 75 MPH zones that are less than 20 miles in length.

With that said, I have no idea what the current limits are on the segments that I labeled <current limit>.  If someone from that area can provide me with that info, I'll gladly modify my speed zone table.

   The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-9 (60), MP 9-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).

   Actually my only proposed changes to I-5 are to 75 m.p.h. in the rural 6 lane zones (I moved the first transition point out from MP 7 to MP 12 to get the freeway past SR 502) and to 65 in 2 extensive "outer suburban" sections, Lacy to Fort Lewis and Fife to South Center.

   And I just noticed an error in my proposal. MP 89 should read MP 83 which is where I-5 currently resumes 6 lanes just north of Centralia. That segment would be 18 miles, not 12.

myosh_tino

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM

MP  0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)


   The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-7 (60), MP 7-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).

Wow, I didn't realize how often the speed limit changes on I-5 through Washington. With that said, I do find one issue with your proposal and that's having the speed limit drop from 75 to 60.  A 15 MPH decrease in the speed limit is quite drastic IMO and is something that's not allowed, AFAIK, in California.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

cl94

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 15, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM

MP  0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)


   The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-7 (60), MP 7-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).

Wow, I didn't realize how often the speed limit changes on I-5 through Washington. With that said, I do find one issue with your proposal and that's having the speed limit drop from 75 to 60.  A 15 MPH decrease in the speed limit is quite drastic IMO and is something that's not allowed, AFAIK, in California.

A few states allow it. New York has at least one place on an Interstate highway where the limit drops from 55 to 40. I do agree that 75 to 60 is a drop that should be avoided just because of the perception and the types of conditions where both limits typically apply. When Ohio raised their speed limits, for example, they kept 65 zones in places such that the limit never dropped from 70 to anything other than 65.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.