News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

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

Thunderbyrd316

#50
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 12:17:51 PM
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.

On I-94 entering the Bismarck / Mandan metro area in North Dakota the speed limit drops from 75 to 60. Worse, on I-29 entering the Fargo / Moorhead metro area the speed limit drops from 75 straight to 55. On I-94 from the west at least there is about a 1/2 mile to mile 65 m.p.h. "buffer" between the 75 and 55 zones. (By the way, I think the 55 zones in the Fargo metro area are ridiculous, especially since both freeways were modernized and widened to 6 lanes.)

   In the case of my proposals, I would be happy to have a mile or two of "buffer" between the 75 and 60 zones. In the case of I-5 between MP 7 (I-205) and MP 12 (just north of SR 502) I believe 65 m.p.h. would be appropriate. 

   (One final note, I made an error in my post last night indicating that the current limit on I-5 from MP 1-7 is 60 m.p.h. That should have read MP 1-9. Although I edited last nights post, the error remains in the "quote" of my post above.)


jeffandnicole

Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 12:17:51 PM
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.

I always point out I-295 in NJ, where the limit drops 20 mph from 55 to 35 mph around the Aljo curve at Rt. 42/I-76 (although it's not enforced in terms of cops sitting there waiting to snag people...it basically functions as a more meaningful advisory speed). 

Also, approaching the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the limit drops from 65 mph to 50mph on both sides of the bridge.

jakeroot

While 75 is still on the table, the most obvious section of freeway in the state (I-90 in Eastern Washington) will not qualify for the increased limit. From KREM2 - Spokane:

Quote
The Washington state Department of Transportation, Washington State Patrol and Washington Traffic Safety Commission announced Wednesday they have decided against the proposal because of safety concerns.

Quote
They found the increased risks and costs associated with the proposed change far outweighed the projected time savings. Their analysis predicted an additional 1.27 fatal or serious crashes annually if the speed limit was raised. A higher speed limit also would bring an estimated $8.3 million in additional annual safety costs.

1.27 :spin:

And $8.3mil towards additional annual safety costs? I'm definitely interested to see the official press release. What in the world would that be going towards?

Big John

^^ I think they mean guardrails would need to be extended to meet a 75 MPH design speed along with other crash barriers.

jakeroot

Here's some more details from the study: http://goo.gl/N8N9tv & http://goo.gl/zLL6px

Quote
Currently, this section of I-90 is posted at 70 mph and the average speed (the speed that half the drivers are traveling at) is 73 mph. Findings from other states that have increased speed limits above 70 mph found that the speeds increase between 1 and 4 mph. If drivers in Washington follow the trend found in other states, average passenger vehicle speeds on I-90 would likely increase up to 4 mph.

We estimated potential changes in travel times, crashes, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at both 2 and 4 mph increases in average passenger vehicle speeds.

Quote
The five year crash history (starting in 2011) shows a total of 1,079 crashes on this stretch of roadway, with 15 fatal and 28 serious injury collisions. Using national research and societal cost numbers, we can expect to see the following if the speed limit was increased:
- At a 2 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an additional 0.62 fatal/serious injury crash annual and an additional societal cost due to crashes of about $4 million.
- At a 4 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an increase of 1.27 fatal/serious injury crashes annually and an additional societal cost of $8.3 million

Quote
"Our top priority as agencies is traffic safety," said Acting Secretary of Transportation Roger Millar. "We made this decision through a lens of safety, and it's notable that all three agencies agreed the increased safety risks were too high."

"Our state's Target Zero Plan aims to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2030," said Darrin Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission Director, "We believe this decision supports this goal."

"The Washington State Patrol stands with two of our many safety partners, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Department of Transportation regarding our goal of Target Zero," said Chief John R. Batiste. "After careful review of the facts and the comments from the public, I support the decision not to increase the speed limit."

So, ultimately, the Target Zero campaign is likely the blockade here.

Alps

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2016, 02:35:45 PM
While 75 is still on the table, the most obvious section of freeway in the state (I-90 in Eastern Washington) will not qualify for the increased limit. From KREM2 - Spokane:

Quote
The Washington state Department of Transportation, Washington State Patrol and Washington Traffic Safety Commission announced Wednesday they have decided against the proposal because of safety concerns.

Quote
They found the increased risks and costs associated with the proposed change far outweighed the projected time savings. Their analysis predicted an additional 1.27 fatal or serious crashes annually if the speed limit was raised. A higher speed limit also would bring an estimated $8.3 million in additional annual safety costs.

1.27 :spin:

And $8.3mil towards additional annual safety costs? I'm definitely interested to see the official press release. What in the world would that be going towards?
1.27 fatalities x cost of human life + N serious injuries x cost of injuries... sum total is $8.3M. Source: I do this for a living.

vdeane

Wow, Washington just out-Oregoned Oregon.  Perhaps someone should tell them to stop listening to the insurance industry (which really needs to be muzzled for all the falsehoods they spew).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jakeroot

Quote from: Alps on May 11, 2016, 05:56:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2016, 02:35:45 PM
And $8.3mil towards additional annual safety costs? I'm definitely interested to see the official press release. What in the world would that be going towards?

1.27 fatalities x cost of human life + N serious injuries x cost of injuries... sum total is $8.3M. Source: I do this for a living.

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. In your opinion, is this annual safety cost relevant to a limit increase?

Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2016, 05:59:00 PM
Wow, Washington just out-Oregoned Oregon.  Perhaps someone should tell them to stop listening to the insurance industry (which really needs to be muzzled for all the falsehoods they spew).

My thought as well. Washington is usually pretty good when it comes to reasonable changes, such as a speed limit increase. Their report, alarmingly, mentions nothing about the 85th percentile, which to me, is the starting point of any speed limit increase.

However, I suspect the "increase" of 1.27 D/SI annually is conflicting with that Target Zero baloney, regardless of whether or not it's a statistic that actually holds true:

Quote from: Roger Millar, Washington State Secretary for Transportation
"Our top priority as agencies is traffic safety...[w]e made this decision through a lens of safety, and it's notable that all three agencies agreed the increased safety risks were too high."
Quote from: Darrin Grondel, WTSC Director
"Our state's Target Zero Plan aims to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2030...[w]e believe this decision supports this goal."

jakeroot

I found an old article from the Seattle Times from the last time the state increased the speed limit, which was in 1996. Here's some interesting facts:

Quote
Transportation Secretary Sid Morrison said raising the speed limit will not make a significant difference in the way most people already drive.
Quote
Morrison said the speed that 85 percent of drivers travel at is safe because people have a "natural tendency" to drive at a reasonable speed.
Quote
Since officials say higher limits wouldn't significantly change behavior, they don't expect an increase in accidents. Annette Sandberg, State Patrol chief, said the state will monitor the interstates to see whether accidents increase and adjust speed limits if necessary.
Quote
Some environmentalists oppose increasing limits because the state would be validating speeds that increase air pollution and energy consumption. But Morrison said that through their actions, people have already decided how they feel about conservation.

A 2011 safety study (page 7) also shows that, although there is an occasional bump in the deaths per-100mil VMT from time to time, the number of deaths on public roads in Washington has been steadily decreasing, with no obvious tie to speed limits.

Tarkus

Vision Zero, Target Zero, and its other aliases, are a utter load of crap.  Are these people really that deluded to think they can actually eliminate injury accidents, by following draconian practices that go against engineering common sense, especially when those practices are simply a thinly-veiled attempt at "revenue enhancement"?

cl94

Quote from: Tarkus on May 11, 2016, 09:46:18 PM
Vision Zero, Target Zero, and its other aliases, are a utter load of crap.  Are these people really that deluded to think they can actually eliminate injury accidents, by following draconian practices that go against engineering common sense, especially when those practices are simply a thinly-veiled attempt at "revenue enhancement"?

Zero is an impossible goal. You will never eliminate injury accidents unless you completely eliminate motorized land vehicles that don't ride on rails altogether.
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)

Bruce

Now wait a minute.

Vision Zero is about city streets, where there's pedestrians and cyclists who could and do die to vehicular collisions. This has nothing to do with increasing speed limits on a high-speed freeway in the rural hinterlands. And while a "zero" is an impossibility, getting as close as possible to zero deaths from vehicle-pedestrian collisions is a goal that everyone should agree with, because who wants more dead people? And besides that, the extra speed you gain without these measures amounts to a whopping minute or two, which would be cut down by traffic light cycles in the city. It's about building safer streets for all modes, instead of kneeling over and letting cars run rampant through an urban environment; it's not like we're proposing a signaled crosswalk in the middle of I-5 here. Be reasonable.

---

Enough off-topic spam. Back to Eastern Washington.

I don't mind stomaching the extra costs to enable 75 mph speed limits, given that most are already speeding anyway and it would be better to modify the roadway to accommodate them rather than risk injury and death. I would like to see better safety features, especially in the median, for these segments. Cable wires aren't cutting it at much lower speeds, and there's plenty of risk for a head-on collision that still remains (this doesn't change with 60 or 75...it's just a fact of life with drivers).

Tarkus

Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
And while a "zero" is an impossibility, getting as close as possible to zero deaths from vehicle-pedestrian collisions is a goal that everyone should agree with, because who wants more dead people?

I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone who wants more dead or injured people.  But you will find people (like myself) who disagree with many of the tactics that Vision Zero campaigns and the officials supporting such schemes use.  "Target Zero" sounds about like "VZ Lite", underpinned by the same unrealistic goal.

cl94

Quote from: Tarkus on May 12, 2016, 12:40:06 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
And while a "zero" is an impossibility, getting as close as possible to zero deaths from vehicle-pedestrian collisions is a goal that everyone should agree with, because who wants more dead people?

I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone who wants more dead or injured people.  But you will find people (like myself) who disagree with many of the tactics that Vision Zero campaigns and the officials supporting such schemes use.  "Target Zero" sounds about like "VZ Lite", underpinned by the same unrealistic goal.

Precisely. Look at New York. Vision Zero is an all-encompassing strategy that looks at everything and is now being used by some as a reason not to increase Downstate speed limits, even on expressways, and to justify the much-hated school zone speed cameras. And, of course, they didn't retime many of the signals for the new 25 mph speed limit, so you're going to get stopped at every light. My dad was down there for business a couple weeks ago and is still complaining about that to me. The fact is that per-capita highway deaths are decreasing even as speed limits go up. Why? Everyone travels the same speed and cars are so much safer now. Get in a high-speed accident and you have a decent chance at surviving. That wasn't the case 30 years ago. Concerning pedestrians, automatic breaking is becoming standard on more vehicles each year. Can't stop a pedestrian from being killed if they step in front of a moving vehicle and the vehicle cannot physically stop.
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)

Duke87

Quote
Currently, this section of I-90 is posted at 70 mph and the average speed (the speed that half the drivers are traveling at) is 73 mph. Findings from other states that have increased speed limits above 70 mph found that the speeds increase between 1 and 4 mph. If drivers in Washington follow the trend found in other states, average passenger vehicle speeds on I-90 would likely increase up to 4 mph.

One odd thing I did notice when I was in Washington earlier this month is that the level of respect for the 70 MPH limit is a lot higher than I expected it would be. This corroborates my observation.

Normally I am dismissive of any concern that changing the speed limit will have a significant impact on how fast most people drive, but if Washington has a culture where people actually pay some degree of mind to what the speed limit is, then perhaps it will.

If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

8.Lug

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2016, 04:06:30 PM
Here's some more details from the study: http://goo.gl/N8N9tv & http://goo.gl/zLL6px

Quote
Currently, this section of I-90 is posted at 70 mph and the average speed (the speed that half the drivers are traveling at) is 73 mph. Findings from other states that have increased speed limits above 70 mph found that the speeds increase between 1 and 4 mph. If drivers in Washington follow the trend found in other states, average passenger vehicle speeds on I-90 would likely increase up to 4 mph.

We estimated potential changes in travel times, crashes, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at both 2 and 4 mph increases in average passenger vehicle speeds.

Quote
The five year crash history (starting in 2011) shows a total of 1,079 crashes on this stretch of roadway, with 15 fatal and 28 serious injury collisions. Using national research and societal cost numbers, we can expect to see the following if the speed limit was increased:
- At a 2 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an additional 0.62 fatal/serious injury crash annual and an additional societal cost due to crashes of about $4 million.
- At a 4 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an increase of 1.27 fatal/serious injury crashes annually and an additional societal cost of $8.3 million

Quote
"Our top priority as agencies is traffic safety," said Acting Secretary of Transportation Roger Millar. "We made this decision through a lens of safety, and it's notable that all three agencies agreed the increased safety risks were too high."

"Our state's Target Zero Plan aims to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2030," said Darrin Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission Director, "We believe this decision supports this goal."

"The Washington State Patrol stands with two of our many safety partners, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Department of Transportation regarding our goal of Target Zero," said Chief John R. Batiste. "After careful review of the facts and the comments from the public, I support the decision not to increase the speed limit."

So, ultimately, the Target Zero campaign is likely the blockade here.
All of that "research" is total bupkis because none of it is based in fact. It's all conjecture. "Well MA @ 65MPH has less fatal accidents than FL @ 70 so that must mean..." No. That's not how it works. All you have to do is look at Montana when they instated speed limits on their highways. Their fatal accident numbers hit 10-year highs when they put up those 65MPH signs.

Also, the argument about people not slowing down when it rains heavy - are you kidding me? You do realize it snows in half the country, right? Do you think we put up 30MPH signs everywhere because that happens? No. We adjust our speed according to the conditions - and so does everyone else when there's adverse conditions.

You can't continue to treat people like children - or else they will just be children.
Contrary to popular belief, things are exactly as they seem.



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.