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.
Quote from: roadman on September 12, 2013, 04:51:09 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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!
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2013, 08:08:28 PM
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2013, 08:37:03 PM
I think he meant New York City!
Aren't most of the NYC interstates posted at 50?
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 12, 2013, 10:40:04 PM
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.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2013, 08:37:03 PM
I think he meant New York City! holy shit! excitement! why are we yelling!
Yes, I meant NYC and the surrounding suburbs.
Quote from: mc78andrew on September 12, 2013, 08:09:31 PM
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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.
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 12, 2013, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 12, 2013, 04:51:09 PM
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?
Quote from: signalman on September 13, 2013, 03:25:43 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 12, 2013, 10:40:04 PM
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.
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.
I wouldn't mind 70 MPH on I-91 north of Northampton. I think that's pretty reasonable.
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
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.
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 12, 2013, 05:02:35 PMhow 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.
@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.
Quote from: roadman on September 18, 2013, 11:03:11 AM
@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.
Hopefully CT and RI are taking notes on this!
Quote
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2013, 12:01:04 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 18, 2013, 11:03:11 AM
@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).
Quote from: froggie on September 14, 2013, 04:15:04 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: froggie on September 23, 2013, 12:54:12 AM
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.
Then in that case I would say your speed would be about the 85th percentile. By definition this means you were traveling faster than 85% of (aka most) drivers. The few people passing you would be the true speeders who are going above the 85th percentile. Most freeways in MA probably have an 85th percentile of 72-77 mph. In your case of 73-74, MUTCD suggests rounding the speed limit to within 5 mph of 85th so it would be either 70 or 75.
Mass, no, what I'm saying is that MY speed is about the 95th percentile.
Quote from: roadman on September 12, 2013, 04:51:09 PM
Bill calls for increased speed limits on parts of I-90, I-91, and I-95.
If I'm reading the full bill on MALegislature.gov correctly, it apparently applies to
ALL roads with a 65 mph limit:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H3175
I wish Rep. Winslow and others also proposed increasing
some of the 55 mph freeways to 60 or 65; IMO the only 55 I would upgrade to 70 would be I-495 through Lawrence, which could probably good enough to be included in the proposed increase to 70 mph). Not all of the 55 roads deserve upgrades, but I'd say most.
If they wanted the roads at 55 to be faster, those roads would be at 65 already.
Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2013, 06:47:12 PM
If they wanted the roads at 55 to be faster, those roads would be at 65 already.
who's they? the state police? revenue craving state and local governments? M.A.D.D.?
by proper engineering standards "they" should be 85% of drivers and if you followed those engineering studies, most roads in fact would be 65+ already.
MassHighway, unless MA law requires statutory permission to sign a limit higher than 55 (as NY used to be), in which case, the legislature.
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 14, 2013, 03:31:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2013, 06:47:12 PM
If they wanted the roads at 55 to be faster, those roads would be at 65 already.
who's they? the state police? revenue craving state and local governments? M.A.D.D.?
by proper engineering standards "they" should be 85% of drivers and if you followed those engineering studies, most roads in fact would be 65+ already.
Traffic on the western end of the MassPike (between I-91 and the New York border) seemed to have an 85th percentile speed of about 70 MPH when I drove it recently on a Sunday.
Hi, new member of the forum here.
Looks like this thread has been inactive of late. I am flabbergasted that the speed limit on Rt 3 north of 128/95 is at 55mph. this is a 6 lane highway that was reconstructed and upgraded about 15 years ago. I recall a couple of articles that mentioned a change to 65mph was in the woks, but that the ticket revenue going to the local communities was too lucrative to give up. Does anyone have any news on this?
Is the speed limit on I-91 through Springfield still 45 MPH?
That needs to be fixed.
Quote from: ProfBrad on December 26, 2016, 09:26:22 AM
Hi, new member of the forum here.
Looks like this thread has been inactive of late. I am flabbergasted that the speed limit on Rt 3 north of 128/95 is at 55mph. this is a 6 lane highway that was reconstructed and upgraded about 15 years ago. I recall a couple of articles that mentioned a change to 65mph was in the woks, but that the ticket revenue going to the local communities was too lucrative to give up. Does anyone have any news on this?
Welcome to the forum from northeastern Massachusetts!
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 26, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
Is the speed limit on I-91 through Springfield still 45 MPH?
That needs to be fixed.
I-91 through Springfield is now posted at 40 MPH, mainly because it's an active work zone. I'd assume it'll go up to 50 mph when the work is completed.
In other "ridiculous" speed limit news, despite I-95 having its construction completed in New Haven (CT), it's still "temporarily" posted as 40 mph.
I don't see the "128" portion of I-95 going to 65. 60 maybe, but even that's doubtful. But I totally agree with Route 3 north of 128. Why didn't that go to 65 when the road was widened? And why didn't it become I-89? Oh wait, no, that was my grand plan... didn't expect that to happen!
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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-490 and the Specerport Expressway (NY 531) I know for a fact have 65mph zones.
But I would say the only roads in MA deserving of a 70mph limit are I-90 west of Springfield and I-91 north of Holyoke.
Other speed limit raises I'd like to see would be:
MA 3 to 65.
MA 57 to 65.
MA 146 to 65 (grade separated portions only)
US 6 from exit 9b to the Orleans Rotary to 55
US 6 from the Orleans Rotary to Wellfleet to 45
US 44 expressway to 65
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 26, 2016, 10:06:16 PM
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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-490 and the Specerport Expressway (NY 531) I know for a fact have 65mph zones.
But I would say the only roads in MA deserving of a 70mph limit are I-90 west of Springfield and I-91 north of Holyoke.
EVERYTHING in New York outside of developed areas is typically 55 unless there are geometric constraints or it is a parkway (which are limited by law to 55).
That being said, most of the Mass Pike outside of 128 could be 70, as could the 65 mph sections of I-91 and I-495. You could even put the portions of I-95 near the borders at 70.
Quote from: cl94 on December 26, 2016, 10:29:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 26, 2016, 10:06:16 PM
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
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-490 and the Specerport Expressway (NY 531) I know for a fact have 65mph zones.
But I would say the only roads in MA deserving of a 70mph limit are I-90 west of Springfield and I-91 north of Holyoke.
EVERYTHING in New York outside of developed areas is typically 55 unless there are geometric constraints or it is a parkway (which are limited by law to 55).
That being said, most of the Mass Pike outside of 128 could be 70, as could the 65 mph sections of I-91 and I-495. You could even put the portions of I-95 near the borders at 70.
If ConnDOT would cooperate and raise the speed limit to 70 on its sections (yeah, right :rolleyes:) I would also nominate I-84 and I-395. Mass Pike west of Exit 10 could be 70 with a drop to 65 from Exit 6 to 4.
--fixed misquote as best I can --sso
We used to joke about New York back in the early 2000s that you had to pay to go 65. I-84 east of the Thruway and all of I-684 was kept at 55. The only route downstate where you could legally go 65 was the Thruway.
I think 70 is excessive for any route in eastern Mass. On the 'pike in western Mass, I see no problem with 70, and with I-91 north of Northampton as well, but only if VT got on the bandwagon. If not, then keep I-91 at 65.
Quote from: shadyjay on December 26, 2016, 11:09:21 PM
We used to joke about New York back in the early 2000s that you had to pay to go 65. I-84 east of the Thruway and all of I-684 was kept at 55. The only route downstate where you could legally go 65 was the Thruway.
I think 70 is excessive for any route in eastern Mass. On the 'pike in western Mass, I see no problem with 70, and with I-91 north of Northampton as well, but only if VT got on the bandwagon. If not, then keep I-91 at 65.
Before you say 70 is excessive, look at where Maine has put 70 mph limits.
Sections of the Maine Turnpike in York County, no less!
I know... that is kind of odd that they went "that far south" with 70mph. But, I guess, it's only another 5 mph. Okay, I can see I-95 going to 70mph north of "128". And the NH Tpke as well.
I'd post I-91 in northern MA at 70 regardless of VT. It's a good 25 miles, no need to hold it down just because of the bordering state. That said, VT really should raise all their miles posted at 65 to 70. I-91 between White River Junction and St. Johnsbury might even be good for 75.
There was a bill in NH to raise I-89 and NH 101 to 70 a couple years ago. Too bad it never got anywhere.
Quote from: ProfBrad on December 26, 2016, 09:26:22 AM
Hi, new member of the forum here.
Looks like this thread has been inactive of late. I am flabbergasted that the speed limit on Rt 3 north of 128/95 is at 55mph. this is a 6 lane highway that was reconstructed and upgraded about 15 years ago. I recall a couple of articles that mentioned a change to 65mph was in the woks, but that the ticket revenue going to the local communities was too lucrative to give up. Does anyone have any news on this?
The report about the crossover accidents on route 3 north of Burlington specifically says "raise the speed limit" as one of its recommendations. In the early aughts the 85th percentile was around 75 MPH and I doubt it's changed all that much. This is years old at this point, but at least they did put in the cable guardrails.
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/SafetyAudit/District4/Bedford-%20Billerica-Chelmsford_Route3_2008-06-05.pdf
Route 3 is one of the nicest highways to drive in the state. It has full-width shoulders, good geometry, and excellent sight. It can even be easily widened to four lanes per carriageway thanks to all of the bridges and overpasses built to accommodate four lane travel plus double shoulders already–which you can't say much about other roads. It's a shame that it's hamstrung by an archaic speed limit. A slowpoke doing 55 helps no one when the road is begging you to drive it at 70.
You could always poke your state rep about https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/H3001 but the fact that it was introduced in January 2015 and there hasn't been any activity on it since June since being referred to study doesn't inspire confidence. It's hard to keep track of when those study events happen and when the transportation committee meets (and what the results of those are).
Staties can still ticket all the people who drive 80+ on route 3 regularly (and there's puh-lenty of them with both Mass and NH plates), just let us regular shmoes set our cruise control to 70 or 75 without fear of tickets.
I think the appetite in The MA Legislature for raising the limit is slim to none. Notice that Rt 3 south of Weymouth is posted at 60 mph, that is at least a bit more reasonable. Perhaps the difference could be split on Rt 3 in the Burlington to Tyngsboro stretch so I am not constantly looking over my shoulder when I am going 65!
Additionally, the more rural parts of Rt 2 could be 60 or 65 mph. I believe it used to be 60 mph prior to 1974. And as long as I am on it, Rt 2 in Acton (where it is divided) should be at least 50 mph. 45 is ridiculous for a divided highway as long as there isn't congestion.
Quote from: shadyjay on December 26, 2016, 07:00:26 PMI don't see the "128" portion of I-95 going to 65. 60 maybe, but even that's doubtful.
Prior to the 55 NSL, most of 128 in that area had a posted 60 mph speed limit. As a matter of fact, the old speed limit signs that had smaller
55 numerals placed over the larger
60 numerals (one could see traces of the larger numerals on the signs) between the Mass Pike and the US 1 (Dedham) interchanges survived into the early 1990s.