Mass Rep pushes for higher speed limits

[roadman]

http://www.wwlp.com/news/local/franklin/mass-lawmakers-propose-to-raise-speed-limit-to-70-mph-on-interstates

Bill calls for increased speed limits on parts of I-90, I-91, and I-95.

[mass_citizen]

http://www.wwlp.com/news/local/franklin/mass-lawmakers-propose-to-raise-speed-limit-to-70-mph-on-interstates

Bill calls for increased speed limits on parts of I-90, I-91, and I-95.

how about before they do that they raise the limits to 65 on route 3 (north and south), the 55 mph portion of I-95/128, freeway portion of route 2, etc. These roads have long been speed traps for the state police and there is nothing to justify signing them 55 while signing I-93 and other roads 65. The lane widths, interchange spacing, sight distances, etc. are all up to the proper standards.

[dgolub]

That's still better off that in New York, where everything is 55 MPH, except for the Thruway (I-87), and not until you get to the outlying parts of the metropolitan area.

[roadman65]

That's still better off that in New York, where everything is 55 MPH, except for the Thruway (I-87), and not until you get to the outlying parts of the metropolitan area.

I-81 is 65!  Parts of I-86 are 65!  The free Northway I-87 is higher than 55.  Maybe the LIE in Nassau and Suffolk are still 55 that are good quality roads that need to be raised, but that is that extent!

[mc78andrew]

That's still better off that in New York, where everything is 55 MPH, except for the Thruway (I-87), and not until you get to the outlying parts of the metropolitan area.

Are you sure?  684 is 65 MPH almost it's entire length. 

[agentsteel53]

That's still better off that in New York, where everything is 55 MPH, except for the Thruway (I-87), and not until you get to the outlying parts of the metropolitan area.

I-81 is 65!  Parts of I-86 are 65!  The free Northway I-87 is higher than 55.  Maybe the LIE in Nassau and Suffolk are still 55 that are good quality roads that need to be raised, but that is that extent!

I think he meant New York City! holy shit! excitement! why are we yelling!

[SidS1045]

I think he meant New York City!

Aren't most of the NYC interstates posted at 50?

[signalman]

Aren't most of the NYC interstates posted at 50?

Yes.  Although often traffic is moving well below the 50 limit due to congestion.  If traffic is light, it will be moving faster than 50, coupled with a less than safe following distance of the vehicle in front of you.  In any case, I don't see the limits within NYC ever being raised.  Most of their expressways with an interstate designation are nowhere near interstate standards (little to no accel/decel area, no shoulder, closely spaced exits/entrances, etc.)

[dgolub]

I think he meant New York City! holy shit! excitement! why are we yelling!

Yes, I meant NYC and the surrounding suburbs.

[dgolub]

That's still better off that in New York, where everything is 55 MPH, except for the Thruway (I-87), and not until you get to the outlying parts of the metropolitan area.

Are you sure?  684 is 65 MPH almost it's entire length.

Yes, I suppose I overlooked I-684.  I'm not on there all that often.

[roadman]

That's still better off that in New York, where everything is 55 MPH, except for the Thruway (I-87), and not until you get to the outlying parts of the metropolitan area.

Most of I-84 is 65 as well.

[roadman]

http://www.wwlp.com/news/local/franklin/mass-lawmakers-propose-to-raise-speed-limit-to-70-mph-on-interstates

Bill calls for increased speed limits on parts of I-90, I-91, and I-95.

how about before they do that they raise the limits to 65 on route 3 (north and south), the 55 mph portion of I-95/128, freeway portion of route 2, etc. These roads have long been speed traps for the state police and there is nothing to justify signing them 55 while signing I-93 and other roads 65. The lane widths, interchange spacing, sight distances, etc. are all up to the proper standards.

Good suggestions.  Do you intend to write Rep. Winslow and request he amend his bill?

[mc78andrew]

Aren't most of the NYC interstates posted at 50?

Yes.  Although often traffic is moving well below the 50 limit due to congestion.  If traffic is light, it will be moving faster than 50, coupled with a less than safe following distance of the vehicle in front of you.  In any case, I don't see the limits within NYC ever being raised.  Most of their expressways with an interstate designation are nowhere near interstate standards (little to no accel/decel area, no shoulder, closely spaced exits/entrances, etc.)

Add pot holes, storm drainage and other hazards in the middle of travel lanes to your list.  You need a wheel and tire insurance package plus 24/7 roadside assist to even think about 75 in the city IMO. 

[Duke87]

It should also be noted that the speed limits within NYC itself are set and posted by NYCDOT, not NYSDOT.

Or at least, the signs are city spec.

[froggie]

I wouldn't mind 70 MPH on I-91 north of Northampton.  I think that's pretty reasonable.

[Interstatefan78]

Even the Northway is 65 mph North of the Albany County/ Saratoga County Border. Also I would want 70 mph from I-95 from the I-93 interchange in Dedham up to the MA/RI border and I-495 from Foxboro to Wareham because most drivers drive I-95  and I-495 at speeds of 70-85 mph which is 5-20 mph above the 65 mph limit

[cpzilliacus]

I've a more-modest proposal for all U.S. states.  Set the statutory maximum high, like 85 or 90 MPH, and then let the traffic engineers be informed by the design speed of each roadway, current conditions and recurring conditions (traffic congestion and high-crash locations) and allow them to set the maximum legal speed limit.

[PHLBOS]

how about before they do that they raise the limits to 65 on route 3 (north and south), the 55 mph portion of I-95/128, freeway portion of route 2, etc. These roads have long been speed traps for the state police and there is nothing to justify signing them 55 while signing I-93 and other roads 65. The lane widths, interchange spacing, sight distances, etc. are all up to the proper standards.

If memory serves, pre-NSL; the highest posted speed limit on MA 128 (prior to the I-95/93 re-routes) was 60 mph.  As a matter of fact, some speed limit signs that had the original posted 60 limit, with slightly smaller 5 stickers covering the original numerals survived into the late 1980s.  These signs were along the Dedham-to-Newton stretch.

Anyway, I'm a tad surprised that a legislator (State Representative Angelo Scaccia) from Hyde Park (which is part of Boston for those that don't know) is advocating for a higher limit.  Usually, it's the city legislators that advocate against such measures.

I'm assuming the sections getting the higher limit, if approved, are outside the metropolitian city areas; I-90 west of Sturbridge but outside of Springfield, I-91 outside of Springfield and segments of I-95 outside of YDH/128.

[roadman]

@PHLBOS

You are correct that, pre NMSL, the posted speed limit on Route 128 between Braintree and Peabody was 60.  IMO, restoring that limit to 60 would not be unreasonable, especially given the recent upgrades between Randolph and Westwood.

[PHLBOS]

@PHLBOS

You are correct that, pre NMSL, the posted speed limit on Route 128 between Braintree and Peabody was 60.  IMO, restoring that limit to 60 would not be unreasonable, especially given the recent upgrades between Randolph and Westwood.

They did such for MA 3, south of Braintree, why not for YDH/I-95/93 between Peabody & Braintree?

I am a bit surprised that US 3 north of Burlington is still posted at 55 even after the widening project.

[Henry]

Hopefully CT and RI are taking notes on this!

[jeffandnicole]

I've a more-modest proposal for all U.S. states.  Set the statutory maximum high, like 85 or 90 MPH, and then l Let the traffic engineers be informed by the design speed of each roadway, current conditions and recurring conditions (traffic congestion and high-crash locations) and allow them to set the maximum legal speed limit.

If the traffic enginners can set the maximum legal speed limit based on those criteria, there's no reason for a statutory maximum speed limit to overrule it.

[mass_citizen]

@PHLBOS

You are correct that, pre NMSL, the posted speed limit on Route 128 between Braintree and Peabody was 60.  IMO, restoring that limit to 60 would not be unreasonable, especially given the recent upgrades between Randolph and Westwood.

They did such for MA 3, south of Braintree, why not for YDH/I-95/93 between Peabody & Braintree?

I am a bit surprised that US 3 north of Burlington is still posted at 55 even after the widening project.

The answer to your question is mainly $$$. After the State Police suck up our tax dollars on details for these widening projects, they advocate against raising the speed limit so they can continue to suck at our wallets. Just drive Route 3 (north portion) any day and you'll see them catching speeders on long straight, flat sections in the Billerica-Bedford-Burlington area (you know, the stretches where it would actually be prudent to travel faster than 55 mph).

The 55 and 60 mph speed limits on 128 et. al. were set based on your dad's Bel Air, not on today's modern cars with power brakes, power steering, and modern suspensions. The sight distances and horizontal/vertical curves can accommodate much faster speeds (and do everyday if one was to look at the actual 85th percentile speed).

[cpzilliacus]

I wouldn't mind 70 MPH on I-91 north of Northampton.  I think that's pretty reasonable.

I drove it today from White River Junction, Vermont to the I-90 (MassPike) interchange.  I would guesstimate the 85th percentile speed in Vermont was someplace between 75 and  80 MPH, and a little slower in Massachusetts (perhaps between 70 and 75 MPH).

Posted limit is 65 MPH except for a few short segments.

[froggie]

That's a bit higher than my usual I-91 experience, where the "85th percentile" would be roughly low 70s.  I typically go 73-74 and I wind up passing most people with very few passing me.