Gov. Brown signs Oregon speed limit increase bill

[jakeroot]

I don't know if you'd consider WA 500 in Vancouver to technically be a freeway (it sort of is for a good stretch barring two at-grade intersections in the middle, which I believe WSDOT is planning to grade separate, that currently split the freeway in two)

Don't start that argument again.

[Ace10]

I don't know if you'd consider WA 500 in Vancouver to technically be a freeway (it sort of is for a good stretch barring two at-grade intersections in the middle, which I believe WSDOT is planning to grade separate, that currently split the freeway in two)

Don't start that argument again.

Holy crap! I had no idea the freeway status of WA 500 was discussed that in-depth. I definitely wasn't claiming that the whole westernmost few miles was an uninterrupted freeway - rather that there are two distinct freeway portions separated by the two at-grade intersections. I found your post in the linked thread and fully agree with it, especially regarding Washington's posting of a few "Freeway Entrance" signs constituting it (just that part) as an official freeway.

[Thunderbyrd316]

Reminds me of Washington a little bit. As far as I know, there are no sub-60 mph limits on any interstate freeway. Even the largely expressway-feeling I-705 in Tacoma is posted at 60 (and its one of the few interstates where some people feel like it's over-posted -- I completely disagree but that's not my point here). The only freeways that are sub-60 that I know of (which is exceptionally rare) are WA-410 for its short freeway stretch, a bit of WA-16 where it meets the 5, the West Seattle Bridge, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct (which I assume will be 60 once the tunnel is finished).

   You forgot S.R. 3 southbound approaching the S.R. 310 Kitsap Way interchange, 50 m.p.h. (Admittedly this is approaching the end of the freeway segment as the segment of S.R. 3 between S.R. 304 and Gorst is admittedly VERY sub standard however, even given that this segment of S.R. 3 is subject to severe congestion at times, the distance between the beginning of the 50 m.p.h. zone and the substandard segment of S.R. 3 south of the S.R. 304 interchange seems excessive. Perhaps this would be a good location for a variable speed zone?) I-5 from the Oregon state line to just south of the Evergreen Blvd. overcrossing, 50 m.p.h. S.R. 7 between I-5 and the S. 38th Ave. Interchange, 55 m.p.h. S.R. 14, the short freeway segment between the Camas Slough Bridge and exit 14, 55 m.p.h. S.R. 17, the short freeway segment on the north side of Moses Lake between E. Broadway Ave. and N. Grape Dr. 50 m.p.h. (Admittedly there is an at grade railway crossing on this stretch.) I-90 the western most leg west of I-5, 40 m.p.h. U.S. 395 between S.R. 240 and I-182, 55 m.p.h. S.R.432 between I-5 and the 3rd Ave. interchange, 55 m.p.h. with 45 m.p.h. eastbound approaching the Cowlitz River Bridge and I-5. (Again admittedly there is an at grade railway crossing on this freeway.) But yes, even with these additional examples, sub 60 m.p.h. segments of freeway are quite rare in Washington.

   It is my opinion that Washington generally does a decent job of posting reasonable speed limits, though I did forward the following recommendations to WSDOT :It is my opinion that Washington should increase the speed limit to 75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270. The speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195.

   It is my understanding that Gov. Inslee's partial veto in April of legislation to increase Washington state Interstate speed limits to 75 m.p.h. still allows such increases AFTER safety studies are completed.

[jakeroot]

It is my understanding that Gov. Inslee's partial veto in April of legislation to increase Washington state Interstate speed limits to 75 m.p.h. still allows such increases AFTER safety studies are completed.

Yes, that is the case. He thought it was silly to up the limit straight to 75 without making sure it was a good idea first. I think he's probably right, in that a study is a good idea (though the chances of a study opposing the increase seem unlikely). I'm personally a fan of these kind of studies, because it makes it hard to decrease the limit later on.

It is my opinion that Washington generally does a decent job of posting reasonable speed limits, though I did forward the following recommendations to WSDOT :It is my opinion that Washington should increase the speed limit to 75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270. The speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195.

These seem like logical sections. Though, I think the urban speed limit should go to 65, period. True, it's not always achievable in some of the traffic in the Seattle area, but there's still plenty of time when traffic is flying right along. Not to mention, a 15 mph gap between urban and rural seems a little large. I'd prefer to keep it at 10 (so if the limit ever went to 80, the urban limit should go to 70).

The speed limits were increased to 60 in urban areas following a study in the mid 90s, which was preceded by an increase in the rural limit to 70. Perhaps WSDOT will study urban limits over the next couple years as well.

[doorknob60]

It is my understanding that Gov. Inslee's partial veto in April of legislation to increase Washington state Interstate speed limits to 75 m.p.h. still allows such increases AFTER safety studies are completed.

Yes, that is the case. He thought it was silly to up the limit straight to 75 without making sure it was a good idea first. I think he's probably right, in that a study is a good idea (though the chances of a study opposing the increase seem unlikely). I'm personally a fan of these kind of studies, because it makes it hard to decrease the limit later on.

It is my opinion that Washington generally does a decent job of posting reasonable speed limits, though I did forward the following recommendations to WSDOT :It is my opinion that Washington should increase the speed limit to 75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270. The speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195.

These seem like logical sections. Though, I think the urban speed limit should go to 65, period. True, it's not always achievable in some of the traffic in the Seattle area, but there's still plenty of time when traffic is flying right along. Not to mention, a 15 mph gap between urban and rural seems a little large. I'd prefer to keep it at 10 (so if the limit ever went to 80, the urban limit should go to 70).

The speed limits were increased to 60 in urban areas following a study in the mid 90s, which was preceded by an increase in the rural limit to 70. Perhaps WSDOT will study urban limits over the next couple years as well.

I hope Idaho does a study of urban limits as well. Traffic along I-84 between Nampa and Boise is generally moving along at about 75 MPH, especially now that the construction in Meridian is finished. It is a very well designed freeway (east of Franklin in Nampa, that is; west of that it's horrible and should stay 65 until it's upgraded), and could easily handle a speed limit of 70, if not even 75 (though that's pretty unheard of for urban freeways). I kind of doubt it will ever happen because 65 is pretty much the urban standard in most western states, but who knows. That will also help lower the 15 MPH gap between rural (80) and urban (65).

[Tarkus]

That's really great and I hope that gets some traction! Barring the legislature taking it up, I guess the only way to get those limits increased would be to do a ballot initiative, but I wonder how successful that would be (a) getting signatures, and (b) having more people vote for it than against it.

I find it odd how western Oregon was totally left out of HB 3402. I halfway wonder if the legislature wants to "see" what the effects of raising the limits are in the eastern part of the state and, if they deem their experiment successful, would perhaps consider raising limits in other parts of the state.

I think the ballot measure would have no problem getting enough signatures.  Station the signature gathering efforts at gas stations--particularly those along I-5 between Portland and Eugene--and you'd have no problem. 

I think the idea of leaving the western part of the state off is indeed a provisional sort of thing, sort of like the matter of the limited self-serve east of the Cascades that was also recently approved.  The only way ODOT will end up doing things of their own volition, though, is a massive restructuring of that whole agency, in which some of the bigwigs who were entrenched in the Kitzhaber/Kulongoski-era culture of the department.

[Thunderbyrd316]

   Check out what I just now came across this morning.

   Link: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/82305

   Note the amendments that include I-82 (70 / 65) and U.S. 97 south of Klamath Falls (65/60). Interestingly, they still do NOT address the segment of U.S. 97 north of the junction with U.S. 197. Still, I have to wonder if my proposal above and my persistence in sharing it with numerous Oregon lawmakers had anything to do with this? 

[Sub-Urbanite]

Pardon the pun, but I think any effort to raise speed limits in western Oregon will run head-on into Vision Zero.

And I think Vision Zero will win.

[Thunderbyrd316]

Pardon the pun, but I think any effort to raise speed limits in western Oregon will run head-on into Vision Zero.

And I think Vision Zero will win.

That may be a possibility but that should not stop us from continuing to persistently pursue reasonable (and actually quite modest) proposals that have at the very least a marginally realistic possibility of success.

And, in my opinion, the very concept behind "Vision Zero", specifically the idea that it would ever be possible to have ZERO traffic fatalities, is wholly unrealistic. Even if we where to mandate full NASCAR style roll cages, fuel cells, full face helmets, 5 point quick release seat belts, "HANS" devices and Nomex driving uniforms for all passengers and drivers on public highways AND established an electronically enforced 35 m.p.h. maximum universal speed limit, there would always still be drunks, dope addicts, psychos, mechanical failures, freak occurrences and just plain clueless people (particularly certain pedestrians and cyclists who have a sense of "entitlement", and please note that I am NOT impugning ALL cyclists and pedestrians with this comment, just recognizing the reality that there are some who exist) there will ALWAYS be at least a few traffic fatalities no matter what. (And self driving cars will not change that because they will be built and programmed by flawed and imperfect humans who, like it or not, are subject to error.)       

[jakeroot]

Pardon the pun, but I think any effort to raise speed limits in western Oregon will run head-on into Vision Zero.

There's no evidence to suggest that lower limits are safer. Research has consistently proven that traffic, in general, is safest when everyone is going the same speed. Therefore, a limit that reduces the speed differential between cars (i.e. a limit closest to the 85th percentile) should be considered the safest choice for said road.

Now, to be fair, you never agreed with the vision zero folks, and you're simply stating that, regardless of facts, vision zero will win on a moral basis or some shit. I don't disagree there, but if it gets down to the wire, there is definitely evidence to support higher limits.

[Tarkus]

   Check out what I just now came across this morning.

   Link: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/82305

   Note the amendments that include I-82 (70 / 65) and U.S. 97 south of Klamath Falls (65/60). Interestingly, they still do NOT address the segment of U.S. 97 north of the junction with U.S. 197. Still, I have to wonder if my proposal above and my persistence in sharing it with numerous Oregon lawmakers had anything to do with this?

I especially like this bit at the very end:

being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist

Regarding Vision Zero, Portland proper is, of course, all over that completely unrealistic nonsense--the most damage they're going to do, though, is to urban arterials, especially in N/NE/SE Portland, though they were already kind of doing some of that in the Sam Adams era, pre-VZ.  Outside of Multnomah County, though, I suspect there's skepticism of it, and the one good thing ODOT can (and will continue to) do is prevent Portland from getting its grubby mitts on the freeway speed limits, which are only 50-55 within much of the city limits (save for the 60 on I-84), anyway.  And in any case, even in the most optimistic scenarios with limit increases, I'd suspect the freeways in Portland would be among the last to be affected, and would barely budge at most.

The best we can do to shut it down is to continue spreading the gospel of the 85th percentile.  I'm really surprised the NMA isn't more involved in Oregon, as they could really have some fun ripping the agencies around here.

[Thunderbyrd316]

   I have always been rather disappointed with the NMA's seeming lack of interest or activity in Oregon. One would think that they would be more active in a jurisdiction that has some of the most repressive speed laws not just in North America but even when compared to much of the entire planet. None the less, progress, slow as it seems to be, IS being made here in Oregon. I am convinced that perseverance is the key to continued success.

[vdeane]

Maybe they considered Oregon a lost cause.

[Sub-Urbanite]

So one of my Portland-based Facebook friends just posted his disdain for the new speed limits. Others in the comments on the post have described it as sickening, maddening, a waste of gas and a cause for certain death.

Just want to reiterate that in today's Portland, spreading this concept much beyond the roads already adopted is probably a non-starter. There's little appreciation for what the situation actually is east of the Cascades, and little interest in trying.

[Bickendan]

And then there's this: http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_left_lane_hogs_banned_b.html

It's probably worthy of its own thread, but it's related enough and has a provision for raising the speed limits on I-5.

[jakeroot]

And then there's this: http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_left_lane_hogs_banned_b.html

It's probably worthy of its own thread, but it's related enough and has a provision for raising the speed limits on I-5.

For the second time in a year, Oregon pulls through and passes some common-sense leglislation. Good for them! Now, as far as I can tell, Washington and Oregon have the same laws, but in Washington, you don't get ticketed for it (though there's a bill in the house that would make it a ticketable offence).

[Sub-Urbanite]

That bill failed.

And then there's this: http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_left_lane_hogs_banned_b.html

It's probably worthy of its own thread, but it's related enough and has a provision for raising the speed limits on I-5.

[Thunderbyrd316]

So one of my Portland-based Facebook friends just posted his disdain for the new speed limits. Others in the comments on the post have described it as sickening, maddening, a waste of gas and a cause for certain death.

Just want to reiterate that in today's Portland, spreading this concept much beyond the roads already adopted is probably a non-starter. There's little appreciation for what the situation actually is east of the Cascades, and little interest in trying.

Fortunately, we (at least supposedly) live in a representative republic rather than a democracy. As such, it is NOT necessary to change the minds or those residents of Portlandia that rarely, if ever, even venture out on to the freeways of western Oregon. We need ONLY convince a handful of State Representatives and Senators, most of which have constituents that live in such places as Albany, Beaverton, Canby, Dallas, Oregon City, Wilsonville, etc. that regularly use the egregiously under posted rural and suburban freeways in western Oregon. This is NOT a lost cause. Progress is still possible IF those so inclined worked together to encourage these Representatives and Senators to support measures such as the modest one I proposed above.

[Sub-Urbanite]

This year's speed limit bill (I-82; US 97 from K-Falls to CA) passed unanimously out of the House Transportation and Economic Development committee on Wednesday.

[Thunderbyrd316]

This year's speed limit bill (I-82; US 97 from K-Falls to CA) passed unanimously out of the House Transportation and Economic Development committee on Wednesday.

   This is a good step in the right direction. I will happily take whatever I can get. I do however wish that at least a few of my own proposals could have gotten tacked on to these amendments but there is still next year.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Passed the House unanimously.

[mcarling]

I agree with Thunderbyrd316.  I'll take whatever I can get.  Keep trying.

[cl94]

ODOT posted a map on their Facebook page showing all of the increase locations

[Sub-Urbanite]

Out of the Senate and off to the governor. Passed 26-1.

[Tarkus]

Out of the Senate and off to the governor. Passed 26-1.

Shame on Laurie Monnes-Anderson.  She was the lone "nay".