My latest effort to reform speed limits in Oregon and a request for assistance.

Started by Thunderbyrd316, January 08, 2017, 09:41:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thunderbyrd316

On January 2 I sent the following E-Mail to every member of the Oregon Legislature and want to encourage anyone who may see this (including persons from outside the state of Oregon because this matter effects visitors as well) to contact every member of the Oregon Legislature and encourage them to enact my modest proposal. Thank you.

Greetings Oregon Senators and Representatives; In 2015 the Legislature passed H.B. 3402 which was an important first step in reforming Oregon's outdated speed limit laws. This bill, which had broad, bi-partisan support, implemented a few modest but long over due increases to speed limits on certain rural highways in eastern Oregon and went into effect on March 1, 2016.

Unfortunately, western Oregon highways were completely overlooked by this bill, leaving the western half of the state with some of the most egregiously under posted speed limits in the entire world. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to draft a modest proposal to bring highway speed limits in western Oregon at least up to a minimally reasonable level as well as to address a few segments of highway where speed limits were inappropriately increased under H.B. 3402. Like H.B. 3402 before it, I strongly believe that this modest and carefully thought out proposal will enjoy broad bi-partisan support. (I do again want to emphasize that ONLY the most egregiously under posted speed limits are addressed here. Many of these segments, as well as many others not addressed in this proposal, could reasonably have even higher speed limits imposed.)

Key features of my proposal include:

Raising certain egregiously under posted speed limits, particularly on some highways in western Oregon, which were overlooked by H.B. 3402

Reducing the speed limits on 6 segments which increased under H.B. 3402 which were not suitable for such increases, plus making a small adjustment in the location of the speed limit change on Interstate 5 at the south end of the Eugene - Springfield metro area.

Removing the "split" speed limit for trucks, except in certain locations were retaining them makes sense. (Split speed limits, especially on 2 lane highways, leads to unnecessary and sometimes dangerous overtaking and other conflict situations which would be greatly reduced if split speed limits were limited to winding or mountainous segments of multi-lane highways where autos can safely travel faster than heavy trucks and easily overtake with minimal risk.)

Putting a stop to the City of Milwaukie's abuse of Photo Radar on an egregiously under posted segment of Oregon 99E (S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard) by restoring a reasonable speed limit to this short segment.

Specific elements of my proposal:

Except as specifically indicated below, "split" speed limits for "Trucks" as currently defined in existing Oregon speed laws should be increased to match those for all other vehicles.

The following reduced speed limits for "Trucks" as defined in existing Oregon speed laws should be implemented or retained as follows:

Interstate 5

From Exit 66 (Hugo) to Exit 80 (Glendale), From Exit 88 Upper Cow Creek Road (Azalea) to Mile Marker 107.5, and Mile Marker 109 to Mile Marker 118, "Trucks" should be limited to a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. (Due to sharp curves and steep grades.)

Interstate 82

(Eastbound only) From the Washington State Line to the south end of the Columbia River Bridge: "Trucks" should be limited to a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. (Due to narrow eastbound bridge deck.)

Interstate 84

From Exit 18 (Lewis and Clark State Park) to Mile Marker 88, "Trucks" should be limited to a maximum speed of 55 m.p.h. (Due to numerous curves and frequent high winds.)

From Mile Marker 219 to Exit 228 (Deadman Pass), and from Mile Marker 332 to Exit 340 (Rye Valley), "Trucks" should be limited to a maximum speed of 55 m.p.h. (Due to sharp curves and in the "Cabbage Hill" segment, steep grades.)

Except as noted above, the speed limit for all vehicles should be increased as follows:

Interstate 5

From the McKenzie River Bridge to Exit 233 (U.S. 20 / Albany) and from Exit 260 (Salem Parkway / Chemawa Road) to Exit 282 (Oregon 551 / Canby): 70 m.p.h. (Currently 65 m.p.h.)

From Exit 288 (Interstate 205) to Exit 292 (Oregon 217): 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

Interstate 105 / Oregon 126

From Delta Highway to 52nd Street: 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

Interstate 205

From Exit 6 (10th Street) to the Washington State Line: 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

U.S. 26

From Oregon 6 to Exit 68 (S.W. Cedar Hills boulevard) and from S.E. Hillyard Road to S.E. Orient Drive (Mount Hood Freeway section): 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

From the Junction of Oregon 216 to Mile Marker 99, from Mile Marker 111 to Madras and from Madras to Prineville: 65 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

U.S. 97

From Biggs to Junction with U.S. 197: 65 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h. - U.S. 197 is posted at 65 m.p.h. - "Trucks" 60 m.p.h. from The Dalles to the Junction with U.S. 97)

Oregon 11

From Milton-Freewater to Pendleton: 65 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

Oregon 22

From the Junction with Oregon 223 to Rickreall Road and from Exit 2 (Lancaster Drive) to Exit 13 (Stayton / Sublimity): 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

Oregon 58

(Outside populated areas): 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

Oregon 99E

From S.E. River Road to S.E. Washington Street in Milwaukie: 40 m.p.h. (This segment was originally posted at 45 m.p.h. and was lowered to 30 m.p.h. and has since been badly abused as a source of revenue generation by the City of Milwaukie's Photo Radar Program.)

Oregon 213

From Holcomb Boulevard to South Beavercreek Road (Oregon City Bypass): 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

Oregon 569

From Roosevelt Boulevard to Interstate 5: 60 m.p.h. (Currently 55 m.p.h.)

The below speed limits should be reduced from those authorized by H.B. 3402 in the interest of safety:

Interstate 82

(Eastbound only) From the Washington State Line to the south end of the Columbia River Bridge: Reduce to 65 m.p.h. from 70 m.p.h. (Due to narrow east bound bridge deck.)

Interstate 84

From Mile Marker 219 to Exit 228 (Deadman Pass) and from Mile Marker 332 to Exit 340 (Rye Valley): Reduce to 65 m.p.h. from 70 m.p.h. (Due to sharp curves and in the "Cabbage Hill" segment, steep grades.)

U.S. 20

From Bend city limit to Powell Butte Road: Reduce to 55 m.p.h. from 65 m.p.h. (There is currently a Temporary Emergency Speed Zone Order in place reducing the speed limit to 55 m.p.h. on this segment.)

From Powell Butte Road to Dodds Road: Reduce to 60 m.p.h. from 65 m.p.h. (There is currently a Temporary Emergency Speed Zone Order in place reducing the speed limit to 55 m.p.h. on this segment.)

U.S. 20 / 26

From Vale to Cairo: Reduce to 60 m.p.h. from 65 m.p.h. (There is currently a Temporary Emergency Speed Zone Order in place reducing the speed limit to 55 m.p.h. on this segment.)

U.S. 97

From Madras to Terrebonne: Reduce to 60 m.p.h. from 65 m.p.h. (There is currently a Temporary Emergency Speed Zone Order in place reducing the speed limit to 55 m.p.h. on this segment.)

From the La Pine city limit to just south of the Junction with Oregon 31: Reduce to 55 m.p.h. from 65 m.p.h. (There is currently a Temporary Emergency Speed Zone Order in place reducing the speed limit to 55 m.p.h. on this segment.)

The additional following speed limit should be reduced in the interest safety:

Interstate 5

From Exit 188A (Oregon 58) to the south end of the existing 60 m.p.h. zone through the Eugene / Springfield area: Reduce to 60 m.p.h. from 65 m.p.h.

I have taken the time to forward this proposal to every member of the current Oregon Legislature with the hope that it may be introduced for the 2017 Legislative Session and passed into law. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me and I will answer at my earliest opportunity.

Thank you for taking the time to carefully and thoughtfully review my proposal and giving it every consideration.

Sincerely, D. Richard Jones, Clackamas, Oregon
(I can be reached by E-mail at thunderbyrd316@gmail.com, text message at 971.570.7721, at my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001099057719 or by traditional mail at [Redacted from post], Clackamas, Oregon, 97015

Below is some additional information I would like every member of the Oregon State Legislature to take into account when considering this matter.

Links to various state and federal government speed limit studies compiled by the National Motorist Association: https://www.motorists.org/issues/speed-limits/studies/

Link to "Speed Kills Your Pocketbook" (Short but informative and entertaining video prepared in Canada): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw

Link to Cato Institute study that among other things, exposed and debunked the work of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety employee Charles Farmer who continues to create "reports" using intentionally flawed methodology claiming that raising speed limits is dangerous: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa346.pdf

Link to current speed limits in the United States for comparison (Note that Nevada and Washington have speed limits authorized 5 m.p.h. higher than those actually posted in the field.):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction

Link to current speed limits in other countries for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country


Thunderbyrd316


corco

I disagree with this approach - actually. Setting speed limits on specific road segments in state statute is incredibly inefficient and leads to issues as situations on the ground change. It becomes a situation where legislators are playing engineers, and that is generally a bad thing - and leads to a legally-questionable patchwork of statutorily specified speed limits lowered by executive order where the legislature missed something.

I would be surprised if the legislature were interested in further micro-managing speed limits in this way - 3402 took care of the very most egregious examples, but I agree still left a lot to be desired. Even as somebody that supports a speed limit increase, I'm opposed to doing so by continuing to specifically identify road segments in state statute.

I'd rather see the existing HB 3402 replaced with something that establishes the default speed limit in the entire state as 70 MPH on freeways and 65 MPH on state highways and provides an objective set of criteria that allows ODOT to lower them as needed. The objective set of criteria could include things like - 85th percentile speed is lower than 65/70 MPH, proximity to a school, within city limit boundaries, development density, and so forth.

That would be my approach - something that gives ODOT criteria so that they can't just arbitrarily say "65 is unsafe," and sets the default as the higher number with an opportunity to lower rather than the lower number with the opportunity to raise (which is what happened in the past when 70 MPH was first authorized). You'd obviously allow ODOT a year or so after passage to gather that documentation for where limits need to be less than 65 or 70 prior to implementing the default speed portions of the law.

vdeane

While I also don't like legislative speed limits (not sure if legislatures like micromanaging to that degree; the prefer setting broad speed limits to specific sections of road; NY's legislature finally delageted the task of setting 65 mph zones to NYSDOT after realizing that speed limits greater than 55 didn't cause the sky to fall), in this case, it's probably the only way to get them done.  ODOT is very strongly against higher speed limits.  From what I've read from the NMA on the legislation originally allowing 70 mph in Oregon, it DID set the default at 70.  ODOT promptly released a "study" claiming that every mile of roadway in the entire state was unusually unsafe due to things like distances from a trauma center and the fact that triple tandem trailers are legal.  Unfortunately, when it comes to raising speed limits, ODOT is our chief enemy.

I don't agree with the reductions.  IMO most roads on this continent are underposted by at least 10 mph.  I'm sick of policies made to the lowest common denominator because we're too backwards to adopt sensible licensing standards like they have in Europe.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

corco

Actually no - the default speed limit was and is still set at 65/55. The legislature gave ODOT administrative discretion to raise speed limits to up to 70 on any roadway, and ODOT opted not to pursue it. It's a small difference, but an important one.

Basically this is the existing speed law:

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/810.180 - which says (paraphrased) "the speed limit is what is specified in ORS 811.811 (55/65/where statutorily overriden), unless  ODOT determines that it can be a speed up to 70"

It was a very messy way of doing things - and part of why I think Oregon needs to just nuke its existing speed limit laws and replace them with something cleaner. What constitutes a "study" needs to be clearly defined and based on objective, pre-defined criteria (e.g. 85th percentile speeds), and should have to be done on a road-by-road basis to override, as opposed to on a road-by-road basis to increase.

compdude787

What needs to be enforced more is the "Keep Right Except to Pass" law. That is more important when it comes to ensuring safety than speed limits. Fines for violating that law should be like $500--in other words, way more than the fine for violating the speed limit.

Ace10

Quote from: compdude787 on January 08, 2017, 06:30:14 PM
What needs to be enforced more is the "Keep Right Except to Pass" law. That is more important when it comes to ensuring safety than speed limits. Fines for violating that law should be like $500--in other words, way more than the fine for violating the speed limit.

This times 1000. I also wish the verbiage of signs posted on the freeway was "Keep right except to pass" rather than "Slower traffic keep right", but this probably won't do a damn thing since that's the way it's posted in Washington along I-5 and I see very mixed compliance with that. It's not that hard - stay in the rightmost lane, pass if you need to, and then move back over. Too many times I see the right lane completely clear of vehicles while there's a decent amount of traffic in the left and middle lanes. In lots of cases there's simply no logical reason to be in those lanes with the right lane clear.

compdude787

Quote from: Ace10 on January 09, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
Too many times I see the right lane completely clear of vehicles while there's a decent amount of traffic in the left and middle lanes. In lots of cases there's simply no logical reason to be in those lanes with the right lane clear.

Yeah, this happened to me today. Everyone was going 55-60 in the left and middle lanes, but there was no one in the right lane, so I was just like "screw it" and got in the right lane and went 80 to get around all those slowpokes in the left lane.

sp_redelectric

Quote from: compdude787 on January 08, 2017, 06:30:14 PM
What needs to be enforced more is the "Keep Right Except to Pass" law
This seems to be more a problem on I-5 than it is on I-84 (at least east of Multnomah Falls, once you get most of the Portlanders off the freeway.)

It is a very real problem on I-5 between the Interstate Bridge and Salem.  Years ago a Legislator got a bill passed that required ODOT to install additional signs to inform drivers the left lane was for faster/passing traffic only, but after a few years those signs were all removed.  Unfortunately OSP and Marion County Sheriffs Deputies are only concerned about the speeders, and not those who are holding up traffic and increasing the risk of road rage.

Thunderbyrd316

Quote from: corco on January 08, 2017, 12:16:37 PM
I disagree with this approach - actually. Setting speed limits on specific road segments in state statute is incredibly inefficient and leads to issues as situations on the ground change. It becomes a situation where legislators are playing engineers, and that is generally a bad thing - and leads to a legally-questionable patchwork of statutorily specified speed limits lowered by executive order where the legislature missed something.

I would be surprised if the legislature were interested in further micro-managing speed limits in this way - 3402 took care of the very most egregious examples, but I agree still left a lot to be desired. Even as somebody that supports a speed limit increase, I'm opposed to doing so by continuing to specifically identify road segments in state statute.

I'd rather see the existing HB 3402 replaced with something that establishes the default speed limit in the entire state as 70 MPH on freeways and 65 MPH on state highways and provides an objective set of criteria that allows ODOT to lower them as needed. The objective set of criteria could include things like - 85th percentile speed is lower than 65/70 MPH, proximity to a school, within city limit boundaries, development density, and so forth.

That would be my approach - something that gives ODOT criteria so that they can't just arbitrarily say "65 is unsafe," and sets the default as the higher number with an opportunity to lower rather than the lower number with the opportunity to raise (which is what happened in the past when 70 MPH was first authorized). You'd obviously allow ODOT a year or so after passage to gather that documentation for where limits need to be less than 65 or 70 prior to implementing the default speed portions of the law.

   While I understand your objections, previous experience with the results of prior attempts to raise Oregon speed limits, particularly the bogus "studies" that were used to kill one previous attempt to implement a 70 m.p.h. limit on Interstate highways (as referenced in another above post by vdeane) and the relative success of HB 3402 lead me to believe that this approach is the one most likely to lead to the desired result.

Thunderbyrd316

Quote from: vdeane on January 08, 2017, 06:26:58 PM
I don't agree with the reductions.  IMO most roads on this continent are underposted by at least 10 mph.  I'm sick of policies made to the lowest common denominator because we're too backwards to adopt sensible licensing standards like they have in Europe.

While I understand your concerns, I sincerely believe that in the case of all of my proposed reductions (except for one) HB 3402 set speed limits higher than appropriate for those specific locations.

Furthermore, ODOT implemented 4  Temporary Emergency Speed Zone Orders lowering the limit all the way back to 55, which was a bit of overkill that I tried to moderate by raising some of that back up to 60. (See my proposal above for specifics.)

In one case I proposed a short decrease more for consistency than outright safety concerns. (I-5 south of Eugene)

Another reason I specifically included these reductions in my proposal was to hopefully win over a few lawmakers who might be "on the fence" or even opposed to increases by showing that my approach is balanced and carefully considered.

Thunderbyrd316

Quote from: compdude787 on January 08, 2017, 06:30:14 PM
What needs to be enforced more is the "Keep Right Except to Pass" law. That is more important when it comes to ensuring safety than speed limits. Fines for violating that law should be like $500--in other words, way more than the fine for violating the speed limit.

Sadly, Oregon does not have a KREP law. (Oregon does have a law that applies to large / combination vehicles and frequent signage that reads "Trucks Campers Trailers Busses Unlawful to use Left Lane Except when Passing on 4 Lane Highways".) The law however does not apply to passenger cars. One was proposed in the 2015 session and passed the house but failed to become law.

This is another law I would wholeheartedly support.

compdude787

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 17, 2017, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 08, 2017, 06:30:14 PM
What needs to be enforced more is the "Keep Right Except to Pass" law. That is more important when it comes to ensuring safety than speed limits. Fines for violating that law should be like $500--in other words, way more than the fine for violating the speed limit.

Sadly, Oregon does not have a KREP law. (Oregon does have a law that applies to large / combination vehicles and frequent signage that reads "Trucks Campers Trailers Busses Unlawful to use Left Lane Except when Passing on 4 Lane Highways".) The law however does not apply to passenger cars. One was proposed in the 2015 session and passed the house but failed to become law.

This is another law I would wholeheartedly support.

What?!?! :wow: That's something that needs to become law. I agree with most of your speed limit increases, but US 26 between OR 6 and Helvetia Road (Exit 61) should have the speed limit increased to 65 mph, or heck, even 70 would be nice. This section of US 26, with its 55 mph speed limit, is probably one of the most underposted stretches of rural freeway in the US. Also OR 6 between the OR 8 junction and US 26 should have its speed limit increased to 60 mph since it is pretty straight and flat and is clearly built for speed.

Thunderbyrd316

Quote from: compdude787 on January 17, 2017, 03:02:11 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 17, 2017, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 08, 2017, 06:30:14 PM
What needs to be enforced more is the "Keep Right Except to Pass" law. That is more important when it comes to ensuring safety than speed limits. Fines for violating that law should be like $500--in other words, way more than the fine for violating the speed limit.

Sadly, Oregon does not have a KREP law. (Oregon does have a law that applies to large / combination vehicles and frequent signage that reads "Trucks Campers Trailers Busses Unlawful to use Left Lane Except when Passing on 4 Lane Highways".) The law however does not apply to passenger cars. One was proposed in the 2015 session and passed the house but failed to become law.

This is another law I would wholeheartedly support.

What?!?! :wow: That's something that needs to become law. I agree with most of your speed limit increases, but US 26 between OR 6 and Helvetia Road (Exit 61) should have the speed limit increased to 65 mph, or heck, even 70 would be nice. This section of US 26, with its 55 mph speed limit, is probably one of the most underposted stretches of rural freeway in the US. Also OR 6 between the OR 8 junction and US 26 should have its speed limit increased to 60 mph since it is pretty straight and flat and is clearly built for speed.

I actually considered both of your suggestions while crafting my proposal. The biggest reason I decided to opt for one long 60 zone on U.S. 26 rather than the higher limits was because I felt that the stretch between Ore. 6 and Helvetia Rd. was not really long enough to justify a different speed limit for such a short stretch. (You would have to slow down again in just a few short miles no matter which way you were going.) Also, I thought the 60 limit would be an easier "sell" to some of the folks in Salem and still an improvement over the current ridiculous 55 limit.

As for Ore. 6, I would really have no problem with the whole thing being 60 or even 65. (Same with U.S. 26 from U.S. 101 to Ore. 6.) In the end, I decided not to push the issue, hoping that my whole proposal might seem more "palatable" to Salem as it is. But yeah, I probably should have at least included the (almost) Super 2 segment through Banks as a candidate for 60.

sp_redelectric

Quote from: compdude787 on January 17, 2017, 03:02:11 PMUS 26 between OR 6 and Helvetia Road (Exit 61) should have the speed limit increased to 65 mph, or heck, even 70 would be nice. This section of US 26, with its 55 mph speed limit, is probably one of the most underposted stretches of rural freeway in the US. Also OR 6 between the OR 8 junction and US 26 should have its speed limit increased to 60 mph since it is pretty straight and flat and is clearly built for speed.

Where else will Washington County get its money?  The WCSO loves setting up a speed trap right at the weigh station east of the Oregon 6 junction and nailing folks coming home from the coast.

Thunderbyrd316

   For anyone who may be interested, I have begun a new Facebook group, "Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform" which can be reached here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1809358179389060/

   This group is open to anyone who is interested in reasonable speed limit reform or other motorist rights issues.

doorknob60

Well, it's something. ODOT is looking into raising truck speed limits from 55 to 60 on interstates currently with a 65/55 split (most of I-5, western part of I-84, and southern part of I-205)

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/ODOT%20Interstate%20Truck%20Speeds.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/truck_speed.aspx

A step in the right direction, I suppose. I think all the split limits should go away though. At the very least, it would make it match the 65/60 split on many highways in central and eastern Oregon (kind of a joke that I-5 has a slower truck limit than US-197 right now).



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.