Will the US ever see an interstate with no speed limit again?

[Plutonic Panda]

If so which interstate(s) should it be?

My vote would be I-35, I-40, I-5, I-70, I-95, or I-10. Now in cities there would have to be recommended speed limits, but I would love to see some interstates with no speed limit.

Another question, if say for example I-70 was proposed to have no speed limit in the rural areas and it would be upgraded as such, but it would be tolled... would you support that?

I have a question as my interest in freeways or really getting into road geeking is new, are any of the autobahns Germany tolled? What are the main differences in them vs. US interstates other than pavement.

They have sharp curves in part in several places. I also know the recommended speed is like 85. They have speed zones in certain areas with limits. Police do patrol them for reckless driving often. Im a very fast driver in the night when no cars are around I often do over 100 and it really isn't that fast. Though I've never been to Germany, it would seem the way people drive is much better there than here. They also move over immediately from left lane.

[oscar]

Short answer: no.

Look at the states that held out longest for no limits (at least in the daytime), Montana and Nevada. Montana imposed a fixed 75mph speed limit, after its supreme court basically made the former "reasonable and prudent" limit unenforceable. It's inched its way back up to 80mpn, but no apparent interest in going higher. Nevada is at 75mph now, no obvious interest in more than 80mph, even if its courts would let it reinstate "reasonable and prudent".

Even Texas, with the highest limit of all (85mph), has it on only one very new and well-designed (non-Interstate) freeway.

Advances in technology could make "no speed limit" safer, but just as or even more likely it will be used to crack down on those of us who exceed existing limits.

[slorydn1]

Yeah, I'm with Oscar on this one. Even if the roads were designed to be basically limitless, the jurisdictions that the roads pass through would never allow the limitless source of revenue known as speeding tickets go. They just won't.

Heck, in most places, it's hard enough just getting the states to post limits at or near the 85th percentile speeds as they are now.

[Jet380]

Driverless cars could eventually make higher speeds feasible, but even then there'd be benefits to programming them all to cruise at the same speed (enabling platooning of cars, for example). What speed they choose would probably be informed not just by safety but by how much the average person is willing to trade travel time for fuel cost.

[Scott5114]

I think that the highest we can ever expect speed limits to go is 100. Beyond that, there's very little practical argument for more speed, and you're approaching the design tolerances on many cars. Plus, there's a psychological barrier for many at that point. 100 mph just sounds "too fast", compared to 95 mph.

I've driven 100 mph on a few occasions and was not comfortable with it.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think that the highest we can ever expect speed limits to go is 100. Beyond that, there's very little practical argument for more speed, and you're approaching the design tolerances on many cars. Plus, there's a psychological barrier for many at that point. 100 mph just sounds "too fast", compared to 95 mph.

I've driven 100 mph on a few occasions and was not comfortable with it.

I've run into many issues in Utah, Texas, and even the likes of Montana with many vehicles having problems achieving even the 75-85 MPH speed limits.  Some older vehicles can't even reach 80 MPH or if they can they are running at such a high RPM that it is really fuel inefficient.  Generally most cars with 6 gears or more can handle the higher speed limits now but 100 MPH would be a struggle.  Granted a lot of cars coming out today have 8 to 10 speeds now.

[texaskdog]

Short answer: no.

Look at the states that held out longest for no limits (at least in the daytime), Montana and Nevada, Montana imposed a fixed 75mph speed limit, after its supreme court basically made the former "reasonable and prudent" limit unenforceable. It's inched its way back up to 80mpn, but no apparent interest in going higher. Nevada is at 75mph now, no obvious interest in more than 80mph, even if its courts would let it reinstate "reasonable and prudent".

Even Texas, with the highest limit of all (85mph), has it on only one very new and well-designed (non-Interstate) freeway.

Advances in technology could make "no speed limit" safer, but just as or even more likely it will be used to crack down on those of us who exceed existing limits.

And I-10 in far west Texas is 85

Even when it was R & P in Montana, I did not go that fast driving through because I did not really feel safe past about 85, the whole point to R & P, people drive the speed they feel is most safe.

[hotdogPi]

And I-10 in far west Texas is 85

Even when it was R & P in Montana, I did not go that fast driving through because I did not really feel safe past about 85, the whole point to R & P, people drive the speed they feel is most safe.

I don't think I-10 is 85 mph anywhere. Only SH 130 in Texas and I-366 in Virginia.

[jeffandnicole]

When their speed limit signs are turned off...the NJ Turnpike!! 

[michravera]

If so which interstate(s) should it be?

My vote would be I-35, I-40, I-5, I-70, I-95, or I-10. Now in cities there would have to be recommended speed limits, but I would love to see some interstates with no speed limit.

Another question, if say for example I-70 was proposed to have no speed limit in the rural areas and it would be upgraded as such, but it would be tolled... would you support that?

I have a question as my interest in freeways or really getting into road geeking is new, are any of the autobahns Germany tolled? What are the main differences in them vs. US interstates other than pavement.

They have sharp curves in part in several places. I also know the recommended speed is like 85. They have speed zones in certain areas with limits. Police do patrol them for reckless driving often. Im a very fast driver in the night when no cars are around I often do over 100 and it really isn't that fast. Though I've never been to Germany, it would seem the way people drive is much better there than here. They also move over immediately from left lane.

I-5 in Central California (currently 70/55) is a natural place. There are plenty of places where CHP doesn't bother with 85/70 or 70/55 tickets when they can grab vehcles for 100+ and actually both increase safety *AND* revenue.

I-15 in Eastern California (currently 70/55) would be natural as well.
I-10 in West Texas (currently 80)
I-15 in Southern Utah (currently 80)
I-80 in Eastern Nevada (currently 75)
I didn't see much reason for a speed limit on I-10 in New Mexico (currently 75) or most of Arizona (currently 75)
US-95 in Central Nevada (which is non-Interstate two-lane undivided) (currently 70) would make sense.

[Quillz]

Even on the most rural interstates, I've rarely felt safe traveling faster than 80-85 mph. And my car seems to have the best mileage around 70-75 mph or so. I have gone 90+ before, and it's never really gotten me to my destination any faster.

While I don't think there are necessarily any design issues, there is a big mental issue. The autobahns in Germany are famous for not having speed limits, but the driving culture there is also entirely different. You're pretty much indoctrinated to always use the right lane except to pass. Not so in America, where people frequently drive slow in the left lane. Higher speed limits will only be possible with better driver behavior.

[peperodriguez2710]

I have a question as my interest in freeways or really getting into road geeking is new, are any of the autobahns Germany tolled? What are the main differences in them vs. US interstates other than pavement.

Answering to the first, none of them are tolled as far as I know, the federal government maintains them.
The main difference I believe that it's the layout. Sure that there are sharp turns and things like that, but in general the Bundesautobahn network is quite smooth.
Other thing is the use of electronic matrix signs like this:
[spoiler]
(100 km/h speed limit, truck overtaking not allowed)

(No speed limit)[/spoiler]
which makes speed limits flexible depending on road conditions and can warn from dangers or even forbid overtaking with the use of electronic signs over each lane. So then, speed can be adjusted according to each lane purpose, the geography, meteorology or even the presence of an accident or construction works some miles ahead.
I'm sure that in my country wouldn't work, people aren't as aware of the signage as the Germans! 

[1995hoo]

Based on driver behavior around the overhead electronic signing I've seen in the US that can be used to adjust speed limits and close lanes (primarily the system on I-66 in Fairfax County since it's the closest to home), I have a feeling most American drivers would ignore those kinds of signs.

[roadfro]

Short answer: no.

Look at the states that held out longest for no limits (at least in the daytime), Montana and Nevada, Montana imposed a fixed 75mph speed limit, after its supreme court basically made the former "reasonable and prudent" limit unenforceable. It's inched its way back up to 80mpn, but no apparent interest in going higher. Nevada is at 75mph now, no obvious interest in more than 80mph, even if its courts would let it reinstate "reasonable and prudent".

Clarification: Nevada has a legal maximum speed limit of 80mph in state law (raised from 75 in the 2015 legislative session), but currently the highest posted speed limit is still 75mph.

I-80 in Eastern Nevada (currently 75)
US-95 in Central Nevada (which is non-Interstate two-lane undivided) (currently 70) would make sense.

Speculation is that Nevada's first 80mph speed limits will go on I-80 in central/eastern Nevada. That might be the only place an 80mph speed is ever signed.

I admit to going 80 along US 95 in central Nevada on multiple occasions, but that can be risky... 80mph speed limits on two-lane highways is not a good idea, especially with the risks of head-on collisions.

[epzik8]

In this day and age, no way.

[kphoger]

80mph speed limits on two-lane highways is not a good idea, especially with the risks of head-on collisions.

While I tend to agree in theory...  in practice, I have little concern driving on Texas' two-laners signed for 75 mph such as this one on US-277 south of Sonora–and 80 is only 5 over the limit on them.  I find that full-width paved shoulders go a long way towards making an undivided highway safer.

[AlexandriaVA]

Some rural governor, probably in the Mountain West, will get elected on the campaign promise of removing speed limits where possible. I'd then expect to see a limited stretch of an Interstate in that state have a lifted speed limit, albeit with many privisos (weather, public safety, governor's discretion).

[kphoger]

I'd expect such a governor to not actually be able to make good on his promise.

[texaskdog]

Well now that government is leaning right again it could happen

[GaryV]

Until the courts get involved.  Who do you think the dead man's family is going to sue, when the state eliminated speed limits and made driving so dangerous?

[Max Rockatansky]

80mph speed limits on two-lane highways is not a good idea, especially with the risks of head-on collisions.

While I tend to agree in theory...  in practice, I have little concern driving on Texas' two-laners signed for 75 mph such as this one on US-277 south of Sonora–and 80 is only 5 over the limit on them.  I find that full-width paved shoulders go a long way towards making an undivided highway safer.

Even US 180/62 near El Paso.  The shoulders and road side fencing go a long way towards reassurance out in the far flung desert at 75 MPH.  Even US 90 near Van Horn wasn't so bad.

[corco]

Some rural governor, probably in the Mountain West, will get elected on the campaign promise of removing speed limits where possible. I'd then expect to see a limited stretch of an Interstate in that state have a lifted speed limit, albeit with many privisos (weather, public safety, governor's discretion).

I doubt it - having heard testimony from folks as both Montana and Idaho raised their speed limits. We are all road/driving enthusiasts - I don't think we represent the broader population. 80 MPH barely happened in these states, in part because of public opposition.

Well now that government is leaning right again it could happen

Look at the individual voting records on recent speed limit increase bills - there's nearly no correlation between political party and support/non-support for speed limit increases. It happens to be Republican states that raise speed limits because those tend to be the sparsely-populated ones, but correlation doesn't mean causation. If you look at the actual voting records in each state you'll see a nearly identical percentage of Ds and Rs voting for and against these proposals. If there were ever a non-partisan issue, this is it.

[texaskdog]

Some rural governor, probably in the Mountain West, will get elected on the campaign promise of removing speed limits where possible. I'd then expect to see a limited stretch of an Interstate in that state have a lifted speed limit, albeit with many privisos (weather, public safety, governor's discretion).

I doubt it - having heard testimony from folks as both Montana and Idaho raised their speed limits. We are all road/driving enthusiasts - I don't think we represent the broader population. 80 MPH barely happened in these states, in part because of public opposition.

Well now that government is leaning right again it could happen

Look at the individual voting records on recent speed limit increase bills - there's nearly no correlation between political party and support/non-support for speed limit increases. It happens to be Republican states that raise speed limits because those tend to be the sparsely-populated ones, but correlation doesn't mean causation. If you look at the actual voting records in each state you'll see a nearly identical percentage of Ds and Rs voting for and against these proposals. If there were ever a non-partisan issue, this is it.

That is some beautiful wording right there

[michravera]

Some rural governor, probably in the Mountain West, will get elected on the campaign promise of removing speed limits where possible. I'd then expect to see a limited stretch of an Interstate in that state have a lifted speed limit, albeit with many privisos (weather, public safety, governor's discretion).

I doubt it - having heard testimony from folks as both Montana and Idaho raised their speed limits. We are all road/driving enthusiasts - I don't think we represent the broader population. 80 MPH barely happened in these states, in part because of public opposition.

Well now that government is leaning right again it could happen

Look at the individual voting records on recent speed limit increase bills - there's nearly no correlation between political party and support/non-support for speed limit increases. It happens to be Republican states that raise speed limits because those tend to be the sparsely-populated ones, but correlation doesn't mean causation. If you look at the actual voting records in each state you'll see a nearly identical percentage of Ds and Rs voting for and against these proposals. If there were ever a non-partisan issue, this is it.

Close, but not quite.

Almost everyone who drives wants no speed limit (or a reasonable one) when they have to drive any reasonable distance. There are some democrats who basically never drive. Such republicans are rare. Also, many democrats, especially now, live in urban areas and have a world view that doesn't include efforts to get from LA to Sacramento or Las Vegas to Carson City in 5 hours on the road. How can they be criticized for not voting for a world in which they don't live?

Has the speed limit been raised above 70 MPH in any small democrat-controlled state with a large majority of urban population? I don't think very often?
Has the speed limit been lowered below 70 in any large republican-controlled state with a large majority of rural population (or even extensive rural areas)? I think that the answer is likewise a "no".

Speed limits are both a commerce and a safety issue. When the interests are the same, it is a non-partisan issue. When they collide, the sides chosen are predictable. Democrats favor "rules". Republicans favor "common sense". If only rules were more sensible and common sense were more common!

[Scott5114]

I'm with corco on this one. It's not really a partisan issue, more of a cultural one. Blue states tend to be heavily urbanized and therefore have slower speed limits as a matter of course. Red states are usually less densely populated and so higher speed limits are justified.

If it were a partisan issue, you'd expect to see the speed limits go up and down with changes of administration in swing states like Florida and Ohio. You don't.

We recently saw speed limit increases in Michigan, which aside from the 2016 election is generally considered a blue state.