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

Next state to raise speed limit to 80 mph

Started by Pink Jazz, September 21, 2014, 07:30:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which do you think will be the next state to raise its speed limit to 80 mph?

Arizona
6 (8.5%)
Colorado
0 (0%)
Kansas
4 (5.6%)
Louisiana
0 (0%)
Maine
1 (1.4%)
Montana
20 (28.2%)
Nebraska
2 (2.8%)
Nevada
11 (15.5%)
New Mexico
5 (7%)
North Dakota
5 (7%)
Oklahoma
4 (5.6%)
South Dakota
6 (8.5%)
Other (specify)
7 (9.9%)

Total Members Voted: 71

Zeffy

Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 01:44:28 PM
PA does, or at least on the PA Turnpike for a stretch.

If I saw a speed limit 70 (or higher) sign in New Jersey I would think it was custom made. I think the Parkway could be 70 easily. I can't say the same about the Turnpike though, considering how many lanes it gets to as you continue north towards Newark (besides, there's VMS speed limits on the Turnpike anyway, which probably work for the best knowing how many accidents people still manage to have on it).
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders


roadman65

Oh yeah the Parkway could be 70 easily, but the way NJ is it won't ever get to be.  Look how long it took for NJ to get the 65 mph maximum.  Then again, we are still waiting for Self Serve Gasoline in the Garden State to this day when 48 other states have had it for almost four decades.

Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

oscar

Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 01:39:00 PM
Why isn't Montana doing it considering their original Reasonable and Prudent speed zones?  I can see them dropping it down to 75 because the other states went 75, but when four states now have gone 80 you figure that they would reconsider raising it back up a little.

That assumes that Montana's Interstates are as good for high-speed driving as the ones in neighboring states now posted at 80.  As corco and texaskdog noted above, that's not necessarily the case.  When I drove the "Montanabahn" in 1996 in my former BMW 3-series sedan, during R&P days, only east of Billings did I feel comfortable consistently exceeding 85 mph.  West of Billings, curves and traffic volumes forced me to dial it back a little, especially to avoid blowing the doors off local traffic doing 65 mph in the right lane.

My impression from talking to Montanans back then is that they liked R&P because they didn't like micromanagement of driver speeds, not because they liked to drive fast.  Indeed they seemed unhappy with speed demons like me, they thought their gas taxes were too high already and didn't want to spend more on their highways to accommodate fast drivers.  I don't have a sense of current public attitudes in Montana, but would not be shocked if there isn't much support for following the lead of neighboring states (just as, in R&P days, they went their own way in the opposite direction). 
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

roadfro

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 01:35:59 PM
Nevada.  I'm surprised they haven't already.  85mph would make sense not just for I-80 but also a lot of the rural two-laners like US-93 and US-95.

I was real disappointed that the bill didn't pass the legislature last year. That would have raised rural freeways to 80mph, where speed studies would allow.

I don't recall that it would have done anything for two-lane highways. I don't see NDOT bumping any of those up to 80mph any time soon, but maybe to 75mph.

Nevada's current maximums are 75mph on rural Interstates, 70mph on any other type of highways (although this is mostly rural US routes).

Quote from: Zeffy on September 23, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
I've looked at a lot of roads in Nevada and I definitely could see a number of them being safe enough for at least an 80 MPH speed limit. There's a portion of US 50 east of Carson City that is extremely straight that I could see easily being at least 75 if they aren't already (GMSV is very shoddy quality in this area), if not 80.

A lot of Nevada highways (US routes and state routes) are two-lane highways. Several of them are decently traveled, and there are portions of certain highways that have relatively high head-on collision rates. So I doubt NDOT would bump the speed limits higher.

US 50 east of Carson City (especially out to Dayton, but maybe even as far as Silver Springs or even Fallon) is one of these corridors that sees a good deal of traffic and there have been some safety issues. Although NDOT is trying to (or has already done) widening out that way. With that corridor potentially seeing traffic volumes increase in the not-too-distant future (due in part to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center and the Tesla plant locating there along future USA Parkway, which will connect to US 50 near Silver Springs), I do not see this stretch getting a raised limit. I don't know the speed limit out there, but I don't even think it's as high as 70.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

corco

#29
Quote from: oscar on September 23, 2014, 02:14:19 PM
My impression from talking to Montanans back then is that they liked R&P because they didn't like micromanagement of driver speeds, not because they liked to drive fast.  Indeed they seemed unhappy with speed demons like me, they thought their gas taxes were too high already and didn't want to spend more on their highways to accommodate fast drivers.  I don't have a sense of current public attitudes in Montana, but would not be shocked if there isn't much support for following the lead of neighboring states (just as, in R&P days, they went their own way in the opposite direction). 

I think that sums it up pretty well. Of all the states I've lived in, and at this point I've lived in a good chunk of the west, Montanans generally take personal responsibility more seriously than any other people I've met. They don't want to be told what to do, but they take that responsibility very seriously and behave themselves.

Hardly anybody in Montana thought of R&P as "let's drive as fast as we can"- that mentality came from out of state. People around here today still curse Washington drivers because they tend to open up to 85-90 on the freeways, and that's deemed to be "way too fast" by a lot of people around here.

There really isn't much call around here to raise speed limits, I don't think. Unlike Idaho, where I think the 80 thing was a combination of "let's be like Utah" and "fuck you ITD for lowering speed limits over the last decade" and Wyoming where the interstates are pretty much on flatlands, there isn't the need or the demand. Montanans don't have an inferiority complex towards other states like Idahoans do, and I've never heard anybody bitch about having to drive too slow in Montana.

The other thing is that you can already go 85 in Montana without really getting a ticket. 1-10 MPH over in this state is a $20 ticket, so you probably won't be pulled over. In Idaho, 81 was (and supposedly still is) a pretty much guaranteed $75 ticket with 75 MPH speed limits. That minimizes citizen demand for the increase too.

That said, somebody could introduce an 80 MPH bill the next legislative session and I wouldn't be surprised. It could happen. It probably will happen eventually. But since there's absolutely no momentum that I know of for it to happen at the moment, I'd be very surprised if they were the next state.

agentsteel53

Quote from: corco on September 23, 2014, 07:09:34 PM
The other thing is that you can already go 85 in Montana without really getting a ticket. 1-10 MPH over in this state is a $20 ticket, so you probably won't be pulled over.

that's a perfect good reason to sign 85mph, actually.  the speed limit as enforced should match the speed limit as signed.

here in California, we may as well sign 80, based on police behavior and speed of traffic. 

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

formulanone


Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 07:33:53 PM
Quote from: corco on September 23, 2014, 07:09:34 PM
The other thing is that you can already go 85 in Montana without really getting a ticket. 1-10 MPH over in this state is a $20 ticket, so you probably won't be pulled over.

that's a perfect good reason to sign 85mph, actually.  the speed limit as enforced should match the speed limit as signed.

here in California, we may as well sign 80, based on police behavior and speed of traffic.

I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit, or when going down a hill, or when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.

agentsteel53

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit
this could use a total reform of the passing laws.  first, left lane is for passing only.  if you are not passing, move over.  next, pass with a speed differential of 10mph or greater.  third, there is no speed limit when actively passing. 

if the average American driver were indoctrinated to believe that farther-left lanes on a road with multiple lanes in each direction were designed to act exactly like the opposite-traffic lane on a two-laner with a dashed yellow line (i.e. pass, make quick work of it, and then get the hell back over) then we would not have nearly as much trouble with bad driving.

Quoteor when going down a hill
this one is a pain indeed.  I once got a ticket for 81 in a 70 because a shitty little rental had gone into runaway down a hill.  the worst is when cruise control is engaged, and the vehicle still goes into runaway.

Quoteor when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.
if the speed limit is plainly posted, then it's your responsibility to obey it.  if the sign is hidden, then we have a fundamentally different problem.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

dfwmapper

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit, or when going down a hill, or when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.
California pretty much has a "going with the flow of traffic" cushion. If you're in a pack of a dozen cars all doing 90 on I-10 through the desert, it's very unlikely anyone will get pulled over. But if you're the jerk who has to pass everyone even when they're doing the highest reasonable speed for the conditions (over the legal limit or not), that's when they pop you.

doorknob60

Quote from: corco on September 21, 2014, 07:43:07 PM

2) Speed limit law in Montana. Montana classifies roads by type and assigns a blanket speed limit. To get a deviation from that speed limit, substantial engineering work at substantial cost has to be done. For this reason, speed limits already often don't make a lot of sense (70 MPH on US 212 over the Beartooth where it's completely impossible to even come close to 70 MPH is a good example of this). Right now the Speed Limit on rural interstates in Montana is 75, including in places like Lookout Pass, Pipestone Pass, I-15 from Butte to Great Falls, I-90 East of Bozeman, etc. There might be hesitation to raise to 80 simply because they don't want those stretches to be 80 and the work that is required by Montana law to get a deviation on a rural interstate is too costly to justify raising the limit.  There's only a couple places in the state where MDT has done the engineering work to legally justify a speed limit difference (US 93 south of Missoula, US 191 by Big Sky, MT 16 just north of Glendive) because it's just not cost effective unless there's stacks on stacks of accidents.

I suspect for the limit to be raised in Montana, the legislature will either have to give MDT the discretion to post interstates at 75 or 80, which is unprecedented (and I believe would require the modification of other standing regulation), or MDT will have to be comfortable allowing for an 80 MPH speed limit over some pretty crazy mountain passes. Otherwise, the benefits of a 5 MPH limit increase would be exceeded by the burden on the taxpayer, since it would be way more complicated than a simple sign swap.


The funny thing is the Oregon speed limits, at least on highways, tend to be the same way, except we have the opposite problem here (some sections in Oregon are severely underposted, while in Montana, 75 is a bit much on some sections of I-90). Why? Because Montana is 75/70 and Oregon is 65/55. In Oregon, as long as you aren't in a urban area or some other town, with only a few exceptions, it will be 65 on the Interstate of 55 everywhere else. That's why US-20 East of Bend (which should be 70) and something like OR-242 (which in many places you won't get anywhere near 55) have the same speed limit. Also why I-84 on Cabbage Hill east of Pendleton, possibly one of the most dangerous grades in Oregon, keeps its 65 speed limit (though passenger cars can keep it close to 65 in good weather, but certainly not trucks). In Idaho, the speed limits fluctuate between 45 and 65 in places on US/state highways, where in Oregon it'd be a blanket 55. I like Oregon (and Montana's) way of doing it, as long as advisory speeds are well posted, but Oregon really just needs to bump up the maximums...

formulanone

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
or when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 08:35:22 PM
if the speed limit is plainly posted, then it's your responsibility to obey it.  if the sign is hidden, then we have a fundamentally different problem.

I've been through many small towns or rural roads where there is no "Reduced Speed Ahead" nor "Speed Zone Ahead" (or whatever the local vernacular) for a 5-10-15-20 mph drop. Perhaps that's because there was never one posted, or because it was removed/destroyed for some reason. Florida has more than a few of those her county roads, although they're still a rarity. Yes, I've been nabbed once for going eight miles per hour over the limit, while actively decelerating for a town line. Screw you, South Bay.

I suppose this is for another discussion, though.

froggie

QuoteWhy isn't Montana doing it considering their original Reasonable and Prudent speed zones?  I can see them dropping it down to 75 because the other states went 75, but when four states now have gone 80 you figure that they would reconsider raising it back up a little.

Corco went into a fair bit of detail about this upthread, if you'd read his posts.

Kacie Jane

Right, but remember, Roadman never reads the thread to see what other people have said before he posts.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Zeffy on September 23, 2014, 01:48:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 01:44:28 PM
PA does, or at least on the PA Turnpike for a stretch.

If I saw a speed limit 70 (or higher) sign in New Jersey I would think it was custom made. I think the Parkway could be 70 easily. I can't say the same about the Turnpike though, considering how many lanes it gets to as you continue north towards Newark (besides, there's VMS speed limits on the Turnpike anyway, which probably work for the best knowing how many accidents people still manage to have on it).

Actually, the lanes would benefit a 70 mph limit if it was allowed, because of the ability for traffic to travel at free-flow speeds.  After NJ allowed 65, it originally was only going to be 65 on the Turnpike from Interchange 1 - 8A.  Surprising to some, they decided to allow 65 up past Interchange 12.  At the time, NJ went from one of the few states holding onto the 55 mph limit to a state where trucks could go 65 (quite a number of states back then limited trucks to 55), and had one of the widest highways allowing 65 mph, at 14 lanes wide (albeit the roadways were no more than 4 lanes wide each). 


agentsteel53

Quote from: doorknob60 on September 24, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
The funny thing is the Oregon speed limits, at least on highways, tend to be the same way, except we have the opposite problem here (some sections in Oregon are severely underposted, while in Montana, 75 is a bit much on some sections of I-90). Why? Because Montana is 75/70 and Oregon is 65/55. In Oregon, as long as you aren't in a urban area or some other town, with only a few exceptions, it will be 65 on the Interstate of 55 everywhere else. That's why US-20 East of Bend (which should be 70) and something like OR-242 (which in many places you won't get anywhere near 55) have the same speed limit. Also why I-84 on Cabbage Hill east of Pendleton, possibly one of the most dangerous grades in Oregon, keeps its 65 speed limit (though passenger cars can keep it close to 65 in good weather, but certainly not trucks). In Idaho, the speed limits fluctuate between 45 and 65 in places on US/state highways, where in Oregon it'd be a blanket 55. I like Oregon (and Montana's) way of doing it, as long as advisory speeds are well posted, but Oregon really just needs to bump up the maximums...

the problem with Oregon is that even if you raised the speed limit to 200, you'd get people going three-abreast at 55mph on I-5.  it's just a cultural thing.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Brandon

Michigan.  There's a push in the state legislature for it, and the MSP and MDOT are not standing in the way.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Pink Jazz

Just to share, if the next state is New Mexico, here are some stretches of highway that I would think could be raised to 80 mph:


  • I-25 in Sierra County.
  • I-25 between Las Vegas and Raton.
  • I-40 west of Albuquerque to Grants except at one curve.
  • I-40 between Moriarty and Santa Rosa.
  • I-40 between Santa Rosa and Tucumcari.
  • I-40 from Tucumcari to Texas line.
  • US 70 through White Sands.

Some may argue that I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe should also be raised to 80, however this is a heavily traveled corridor, and in addition the New Mexico Rail Runner Express probably will not allow a speed limit increase due to it possibly negatively affecting their ridership.

froggie

QuoteSome may argue that I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe should also be raised to 80, however this is a heavily traveled corridor, and in addition the New Mexico Rail Runner Express probably will not allow a speed limit increase due to it possibly negatively affecting their ridership.

More significant than any commuter rail is that there is topography north of Bernalillo that would likely preclude an 80 MPH limit.

doorknob60

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2014, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on September 24, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
The funny thing is the Oregon speed limits, at least on highways, tend to be the same way, except we have the opposite problem here (some sections in Oregon are severely underposted, while in Montana, 75 is a bit much on some sections of I-90). Why? Because Montana is 75/70 and Oregon is 65/55. In Oregon, as long as you aren't in a urban area or some other town, with only a few exceptions, it will be 65 on the Interstate of 55 everywhere else. That's why US-20 East of Bend (which should be 70) and something like OR-242 (which in many places you won't get anywhere near 55) have the same speed limit. Also why I-84 on Cabbage Hill east of Pendleton, possibly one of the most dangerous grades in Oregon, keeps its 65 speed limit (though passenger cars can keep it close to 65 in good weather, but certainly not trucks). In Idaho, the speed limits fluctuate between 45 and 65 in places on US/state highways, where in Oregon it'd be a blanket 55. I like Oregon (and Montana's) way of doing it, as long as advisory speeds are well posted, but Oregon really just needs to bump up the maximums...

the problem with Oregon is that even if you raised the speed limit to 200, you'd get people going three-abreast at 55mph on I-5.  it's just a cultural thing.

On I-5, yeah probably. The Willamette Valley and Coast can be bad in terms of slow drivers, but central and eastern Oregon (where we generally drive pretty fast), including I-84, could really use it.

1995hoo

I hadn't previously looked at this thread. I see Maine mentioned on the poll list. I believe their legislature and governor passed a law allowing 75-mph limits on any Interstate, correct? But if I'm not mistaken, the DOT declined to post 75-mph limits on any road other than the part of I-95 north of Old Town that was already posted at 75. If that's correct, I can't imagine Maine having an 80-mph limit any time soon.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

TEG24601

Having driven this country extensively, I don't see any reason that any state has a limit below 80.


But I would hope that Washington and Oregon would get with the program, especially given that most of the states is empty.
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.

Duke87

Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2014, 06:37:28 PM
Michigan.  There's a push in the state legislature for it, and the MSP and MDOT are not standing in the way.

Unless something else has transpired that isn't showing up when I google it, that proposal was more than a year ago.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

hotdogPi

Quote from: TEG24601 on September 25, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
Having driven this country extensively, I don't see any reason that any state has a limit below 80.

What about Rhode Island?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

jakeroot

Quote from: 1 on September 26, 2014, 05:14:25 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 25, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
Having driven this country extensively, I don't see any reason that any state has a limit below 80.

What about Rhode Island?

The 295 looks like it could handle 80 easily. But, I've never driven it so I couldn't be certain.

Pink Jazz




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.