There's been surprisingly little talk about this, but per both OregonLive's Bill Tracker (http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/HB3402) and the Oregon Legislative Information System (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3402), it appears Gov. Kate Brown signed House Bill 3402 two days ago, which writes a few specific higher speed limits for certain roads into the Oregon Revised Statutes. The bill adds the following changes:
-I-84 from eastern city limits of The Dalles to the Idaho state line: 70mph (was 65mph), 65mph trucks
-US-20 from Bend to Ontario: 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-US-26 from John Day to Vale: 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-US-95 from the Nevada state line to the Idaho state line (entire Oregon portion): 70mph (was 55mph), 65mph trucks
-US-97 from US-197 to Klamath Falls: 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-US-197 from The Dalles to US-97 (almost entire highway): 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-US-395 from John Day to the California state line: 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-OR-31 from Valley Falls to La Pine (entire highway): 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-OR-78 from Burns to Burns Junction (entire highway): 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
-OR-205 from Burns to Frenchglen: 65mph (was 55mph), 60mph trucks
Interestingly, this is the first time speed limits for specific roads, rather than classes of roads, have been written into the ORS, which might set a new precedent for how limits on interstates and rural highways are set, and I'm curious to see if perhaps similar bills like this will pop up in the future. It seems to be a very conscious effort to keep ODOT from trying any funny business as they did back in 2004, with the bogus "study" they farmed out to OHSU and PSU. ODOT representatives, as one might expect, testified against the bill while it was in the House, trotting out the nonsense "distance from hospital" reasoning, but from the looks of things, they may finally be stuck with this one. The 70mph zone on I-84 also renders at least part of the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) that covered Interstate speed limits from 2004 obsolete; whether or not it annuls the entire OAR is unclear (ODOT's reps seemed to think it would), which would cause all stretches of Interstate, save from the eastern part of I-84, to become 65mph zones by statute. It specifically does not supersede any standard speed zone orders in cities, however, so things like the 45mph zone on US-197 in The Dalles would remain in tact.
Suffice to say, Gov. Brown just gained a ton of respect in my book.
I'm glad to see Oregon join the rest of the civilized world, but I'm not okay with a bunch of old men in Salem without any engineering degrees deciding speed limits. Then again, ODOT would never have raised it on their own, so I suppose the point is moot.
Also, why the hell is the eastern part of the state getting all the increases? There are plenty of roads in Western Oregon that deserve 65 and 70.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2015, 12:18:11 AM
I'm glad to see Oregon join the rest of the civilized world, but I'm not okay with a bunch of old men in Salem without any engineering degrees deciding speed limits. Then again, ODOT would never have raised it on their own, so I suppose the point is moot.
Also, why the hell is the eastern part of the state getting all the increases? There are plenty of roads in Western Oregon that deserve 65 and 70.
I absolutely agree with you. It's sad that the limits had to get completely legislated like this, but ODOT is so full of crap that it was the only way. I suspect the increases in the eastern part of the state are partly a product of one of the bill's primary authors (Rep. Greg Barreto, R-Cove) being from that part of the state, and the fact that having some initial stretches of higher speeds in the less populated part of the state serves as a good initial test. Most states that like to dip their toes into higher speeds usually try it out in remote areas first, and then have expanded from there, like what Utah has been doing with their 80mph zones. I'm mildly disappointed that the stretch of I-5 from Wilsonville to Eugene didn't get the bump up to 70mph, and can definitely think of some other stretches in the western part that could use a bump, but I'm absolutely overjoyed to see ODOT's statewide speed trap start to crack, and hope there's more of that to come. I have to wonder if perhaps Gov. Brown might be considering making some changes with ODOT as well, now that she's settling into things and clearly isn't falling for their nonsense.
Thank goodness! I've gone back and forth to Idaho a few times this year, and have another trip there planned this weekend. The drives along US 20 and US 26 were a nice change from I-84/US 30, but I hated the low 55 mph limits along those stretches. I still ended up going 65-70, which seemed like the right speed to go, and ended up passing a few vehicles along the way. I can travel much better now - or at least when the changes take effect - knowing I won't be in danger of being caught in a speed trap.
Hopefully soon we will see increases in other areas of the state. I-5 and US 26 (the Sunset Highway/freeway portion) - and probably OR 217 - in the Portland Metro area can easily handle 70 in places where there is light traffic. I'd like to see a system where variable speed limit signs are installed that can keep traffic at a slower pace when it's congested, but let it open up when there is light traffic. Traffic seems to go around 65-70 there anyway, even when traffic's a bit heavy. 55 is too slow in my opinion when traffic allows, and it's much safer when everyone goes around the same speed than having people go safely around 65 and have others steadfastly following the slower limt.
Given the congestion on I-5 in the Willamette Valley and the curvy/hilly sections south of there to the California border, I am happy to see I-5 remain at 65 MPH. The freeway needs to be 6-laned from Salem south in order to allow for faster travel. Eastern Oregon is it's own animal when it comes to highways and traffic. The increased speed limits there were needed.
As for speeding, if you go 70 MPH on I-5 you don't seem to have much to worry about from the po-po's since the Coburg PD got put on a short leash some years back. If you go 75 MPH on I-84 in Eastern Oregon you'll be in good company as that seems to be the unofficial speed limit. US routes there seem to run about the same and police presence does not seem onerous when I drive on the other side of the Cascades.
What I would like to see done away with are split speed limits.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on July 23, 2015, 12:48:48 PM
What I would like to see done away with are split speed limits.
The splits, however, have less of a differential--they've gone from 10mph to 5mph. That's at least a step in the right direction.
As much as the split speed limits should go, I'm happy to see that the new ones are only 5 mph apart instead of the 10 mph on this side of the Cascades.
Regarding I-5: Through Portland itself, I'd estimate it should be 60 from Washington to the Fremont Stack, 50 along the Eastbank and through the Terwilliger Curves (55 if they ever six lane the Eastbank), 55 between downtown and the Curves, 60 from the Curves to exit 294, and 60-65 to I-205. From 205 to the Salem Parkway, 70. Salem Parkway to Keubler Blvd, 65. 70 from there to California, with necessary drops along the the curvier segments in the mountains and Myrtle Creek (that advisory 45 really shouldn't be a suggestion, lol).
Sunset Hwy (Tillamook Junction to Sylvan): 70
Sylvan to I-405: 60, not that traffic volume would really go that fast given how they like to ride their brakes going down the Canyon Rd portion...
Cannon Beach to Tillamook Junction: 65, with 55 advisory speeds on the steep declines approaching the coast
Stadium Frwy: 55
Yeon Ave (Nicolai-Fremont Bridge): 50
Banfield Frwy/Columbia River Hwy/Old Oregon Trail (I-5 to I-205/Halsey): 60. (I-205/Halsey to Troutdale): 65 (Troutdale to Idaho): 75 (Emigrant Hill): 50
I-205 (Washington-West Linn): 65
West Linn - I-5: 70
Sunrise Freeway (future): 60
OR 18 (Valley Junction - Sherwood, including future Newberg-Dundee Bypass): 65
Otis - Valley Junction: 60
OR 569: 65
I-105/OR 126: 65
Delta Highway: 60
OR 22 (OR 223-OR221): 65
North Santiam Highway (I-5 to US 20): 65
That should cover most of the freeways in western Oregon...
While I greatly appreciate that driving in Oregon isn't going to suck nearly as much, I hope this doesn't mean that "speed" signs will become a rare sighting in eastern Oregon.
70 MPH on US 95 is going to economically cripple Jordan Valley though...
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2015, 12:18:11 AMI'm glad to see Oregon join the rest of the civilized world, but I'm not okay with a bunch of old men in Salem without any engineering degrees deciding speed limits. Then again, ODOT would never have raised it on their own, so I suppose the point is moot.
What old men in Salem? The current governor is a woman. 31% of Oregon legislators are women. The speaker of the Oregon House and the leaders of the Democratic caucuses in both houses--all women.
Quote from: corco on July 23, 2015, 03:09:53 PM
While I greatly appreciate that driving in Oregon isn't going to suck nearly as much, I hope this doesn't mean that "speed" signs will become a rare sighting in eastern Oregon.
70 MPH on US 95 is going to economically cripple Jordan Valley though...
ODOT, for whatever silly reason, eliminated the section that allowed the traditional "speed" as opposed to "speed limit" variant in the latest MUTCD supplement, and they now have an unofficial sign policy that is convoluted and unfortunately tends to favor "speed limit" verbiage. Most of the new signs they've installed, especially in the eastern part of the state, are of the un-Oregonian type, sadly.
Essentially the idea is that only 55 MPH speed limits would get the "speed" sign, since that's the statutory default prima facie speed limit, right?
Without knowing what I'm talking about, since these speed limits are written into statute directly, I wonder if they would also qualify for "speed" instead of "speed limit" off-interstate? Are these new limits absolute or prima facie?
Quote from: Bickendan on July 23, 2015, 03:08:46 PM
As much as the split speed limits should go, I'm happy to see that the new ones are only 5 mph apart instead of the 10 mph on this side of the Cascades.
Interesting because heading the other way (south instead of north), the maximum truck speed limit is 55 MPH in California. This creates a 10 MPH differential when the limit is 65 MPH and 15 MPH differential when the limit is 70 MPH.
Another interesting note, with Oregon's rise in speed limits, California's 55 MPH truck speed limit is now the lowest on the west coast...
It'll still be Trucks 55 on I-5 :(
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2015, 03:15:28 PM
What old men in Salem?
Figure of speech. My point was that there's a bunch of *presumably* older people in Salem deciding speed limits, and there's a pretty damn good chance none of them having engineering degrees and are by no means qualified to set speed limits. The only thing they should decide is the absolute maximum limit that ODOT can impose.
My fear is that, in 5 or so years, if Oregon wants to increase the limits to 75, they'll have to re-write the laws, since the limits are written in stone. Washington just has a cap of 70, and the head of DOT (the Secretary of Transport) gets to decide where to increase the limit. Granted, WSDOT is more liberal in terms of increasing the limit than ODOT (though not in contrast to other western states), but still, it'll be a hassle years down the road.
Don't get me wrong, I am ecstatic to see Oregon joining modern society, but long term I have a feeling that this style of speed limit increase will become tangled in politics, where I don't think it belongs.
Then again, I might be misinterpreting the bill, but from what I've read before, Oregon's had 70 mph limits since 2004, but now the government is just mandating an increase by writing in stone the limits for each individual road.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2015, 05:43:06 PMFigure of speech. My point was that there's a bunch of *presumably* older people in Salem deciding speed limits, and there's a pretty damn good chance none of them having engineering degrees and are by no means qualified to set speed limits. The only thing they should decide is the absolute maximum limit that ODOT can impose.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2015, 05:43:06 PMThen again, I might be misinterpreting the bill, but from what I've read before, Oregon's had 70 mph limits since 2004, but now the government is just mandating an increase by writing in stone the limits for each individual road.
The problem is that ODOT refused to exercise the power to increase limits to 70 that it was given as part of the compromise Kulongoski brokered in the mid-noughties. This is a situation where the approach you suggest (which is followed by the majority of other states)--specifying statewide maximums in statute law and leaving the engineers to sort it out--simply did not work.
From a bill drafting perspective, I feel it is untidy to have specific speed limits for a number of roads within the statute text itself; I would park this material in a separate schedule. However, citizen legislatures tend to be weak on bill drafting practice, and for purposes of general reference it is helpful to have just one place where applicable law may be found.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2015, 05:43:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2015, 03:15:28 PM
What old men in Salem?
Figure of speech. My point was that there's a bunch of *presumably* older people in Salem deciding speed limits, and there's a pretty damn good chance none of them having engineering degrees and are by no means qualified to set speed limits. The only thing they should decide is the absolute maximum limit that ODOT can impose.
IMO politicians shouldn't even be able to do that, but I'm OK with this law because ODOT is so far up the rear of the "speed kills" lobby that they view the world as one giant colin.
Quote
My fear is that, in 5 or so years, if Oregon wants to increase the limits to 75, they'll have to re-write the laws, since the limits are written in stone. Washington just has a cap of 70, and the head of DOT (the Secretary of Transport) gets to decide where to increase the limit. Granted, WSDOT is more liberal in terms of increasing the limit than ODOT (though not in contrast to other western states), but still, it'll be a hassle years down the road.
Or they could just define the 75 mph zones. Presumably the newer law would override the older one.
Though in the broader scope, this is a reason why laws are a million pages long these days. Passing anything requires amending a million other laws. Combined with court decisions and the concept of "precedent", the legal system is VERY complicated.
Quote
Don't get me wrong, I am ecstatic to see Oregon joining modern society, but long term I have a feeling that this style of speed limit increase will become tangled in politics, where I don't think it belongs.
Not the only place it's been used. NY's initial foray into 65 mph limits after the repeal of NMSL was done the same way. It's not done that way any more.
Quote
Then again, I might be misinterpreting the bill, but from what I've read before, Oregon's had 70 mph limits since 2004, but now the government is just mandating an increase by writing in stone the limits for each individual road.
That's my understanding as well.
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2015, 08:59:23 PMOr they could just define the 75 mph zones. Presumably the newer law would override the older one.
Under the rules of statutory construction used in most states (which are often codified in an interpretation act), this is true, but it is still considered bad practice to replace without repealing. Part of the reason for this is that the courts infer legislative intent in order to work past bill drafting errors (which often survive codification) and a clause providing for repeal of prior law makes it unambiguously clear that it was the legislature's intent to repeal that law.
Quote from: vdeane on July 23, 2015, 08:59:23 PMQuoteThen again, I might be misinterpreting the bill, but from what I've read before, Oregon's had 70 mph limits since 2004, but now the government is just mandating an increase by writing in stone the limits for each individual road.
That's my understanding as well.
Oregon has not in fact had any 70 limits since the NMSL was imposed in 1973. What ODOT has had since 2004 is the
power to designate 70 limits on certain types of road, which it has up to now deliberately chosen not to exercise. This is why the legislature has opted to force the agency's hand by declaring speed limits for certain lengths of road in statute law.
Aside from the other objections to this approach that have previously been mentioned, I wonder what happens if any of the segments receiving increased limits are withdrawn from the state highway system, or are vacated by relocation. I am sure there are other drawbacks to not having the ability to set speed limits folded into the state DOT's general power to designate, maintain, construct, improve, and vacate a state highway.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2015, 08:45:23 PM
From a bill drafting perspective, I feel it is untidy to have specific speed limits for a number of roads within the statute text itself; I would park this material in a separate schedule. However, citizen legislatures tend to be weak on bill drafting practice, and for purposes of general reference it is helpful to have just one place where applicable law may be found.
I agree with you on this one. Great that some roads get the increase, but terrible that it had to specifically codified into law for this to happen.
What happens if a legitimate speed or safety concern arises, such that a lower speed should become necessary? Does ODOT have to wait until the next legislative session to draft a bill to hope the legislators reduce the limit? Seems asinine...
Quote
The problem is that ODOT refused to exercise the power to increase limits to 70 that it was given as part of the compromise Kulongoski brokered in the mid-noughties. This is a situation where the approach you suggest (which is followed by the majority of other states)--specifying statewide maximums in statute law and leaving the engineers to sort it out--simply did not work.
I don't understand why Oregon/ODOT has been so averse to slightly higher speed limits in the past? What has been the justification they use when neighboring states use higher limits in similar terrain?
My drive from Reno to Portland and back in 2007 infuriated me to no end. It was such a long distance on I-5, well south of the Portland urban/suburban area, before the speed limit raised up to 65mph. By contrast, I-80 in urban Reno has a 65mph speed limit which increases to 70-75mph in all non-mountainous rural areas (at least prior to the recent increase in the maximum speed limit, it could be up to 80mph now). Also, many two-lane highways in rural Nevada are 70mph, especially on the US highways.
I think it is insane that I can legally go faster on most undivided two-lane highways in Nevada than I can go on an Interstate freeway in Oregon.
A little update. According to OregonLive Bill Tracker (http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/HB3402/), the new speed limits will go into effect on January 1st, 2016. Oddly enough, still no news media reporting on it actually becoming law.
Quote from: corco on July 23, 2015, 04:09:05 PM
Essentially the idea is that only 55 MPH speed limits would get the "speed" sign, since that's the statutory default prima facie speed limit, right?
Without knowing what I'm talking about, since these speed limits are written into statute directly, I wonder if they would also qualify for "speed" instead of "speed limit" off-interstate? Are these new limits absolute or prima facie?
Correct on the Speed 55 signs. The sign policy document I saw (I'll have to find it again) specifically said that 55mph signs were supposed to omit the word "limit", presumably for just that reason. I don't know if this bill will change that. The wording in HB 3402 specifically uses the word "speed limit" for the roads that are now codified in law, and usually when that's the case, they'll stick the full verbiage in there. It's a shame, as I would have loved to have seen a "Speed 70" sign, trumpeting that nice new number.
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2015, 08:28:39 PM
I don't understand why Oregon/ODOT has been so averse to slightly higher speed limits in the past? What has been the justification they use when neighboring states use higher limits in similar terrain?
They are in denial of the fact that other states have seen drops in accident rates after speed limit increases, and in fact have repeatedly used bogus/misleading statistics to claim the opposite. They also love to trot out nonsense that the roads that would make sense to raise are "too far from hospitals", which was a central argument in the PSU/OHSU study that ODOT previously used to not raise the Interstate limits to 70 when they were granted that authority in 2004. It all reeks of Kitzhaber influence.
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2015, 08:28:39 PM
I think it is insane that I can legally go faster on most undivided two-lane highways in Nevada than I can go on an Interstate freeway in Oregon.
I remember my joy at seeing that "Speed Limit 70" sign on NV-292 when I crossed over in Denio a couple years ago. I took a picture of it, and had I not been solo on that roadtrip, I would have had someone take a picture of me hugging it. :spin:
One thing that I found weird is that it appears that US-97 from US-197 to Biggs will not be getting a raise, but US-197 will. If you've ever driven both these highways, US-197 has a lot of curves going into Maupin, and 55 would be reasonable for a good chunk of it. While US-97 is fairly wide open and should be 65 the whole way. It would be weird driving from Bend or Klamath Falls north going 65, then after the 197 split all of a sudden being dropped to 55 for no good reason.
I wonder if there was some sort of compromise where I-84 east of The Dalles got 70 instead of 75 (or even 80). I just returned from a trip to Idaho along I-84, and for a good long stretch, I was doing 75 and was not passing anyone nor getting passed by anyone (save for trucks). Sure, there were times when I passed others or others passed me, but I really seemed to be doing average. If that's the case, and a real traffic engineering study should show that most drivers are doing about 75 on that stretch, wouldn't the limit have been raised to 75 instead of 70, or is someone trying to step it up just a bit to see if it has a negative (or positive) impact on crash data, and then raise it the rest of the way?
It's painful doing 80 in Idaho and crossing back into Oregon where it's still signed as 65.
I wonder what would happen if someone were to introduce a ballot initiative that raised the limit, now that there's precedent for them being defined in law for specific segments of highways.
I imagine the Portland Metro voters would defeat any ballot measure to raise the limit. Because driving fast is scary.
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 27, 2015, 02:42:51 PM
One thing that I found weird is that it appears that US-97 from US-197 to Biggs will not be getting a raise, but US-197 will. If you've ever driven both these highways, US-197 has a lot of curves going into Maupin, and 55 would be reasonable for a good chunk of it. While US-97 is fairly wide open and should be 65 the whole way. It would be weird driving from Bend or Klamath Falls north going 65, then after the 197 split all of a sudden being dropped to 55 for no good reason.
Yeah, I don't understand not raising northern bit of US-97 to 65. I suspect they were following the internal "The Dalles-California Highway" logic in switching to US-197 there, but 97 is much less curvy there. Hopefully, that will be fixed soon.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 27, 2015, 07:06:25 PM
I imagine the Portland Metro voters would defeat any ballot measure to raise the limit. Because driving fast is scary.
The only things that were really standing in the way of limit increases were Kitzhaber and various upper-crust ODiOTs. I know plenty of Portland Metro voters who would support an increase, and most of the usual suspects you'd expect to vote against it actually voted for HB 3402. I suspect ODOT, AAA, and a few others would probably try to use some scare tactics if there were a ballot measure, but there's a pretty likely chance that'd it pass by a landslide.
Quote from: Ace10 on July 27, 2015, 04:49:21 PM
I wonder if there was some sort of compromise where I-84 east of The Dalles got 70 instead of 75 (or even 80). I just returned from a trip to Idaho along I-84, and for a good long stretch, I was doing 75 and was not passing anyone nor getting passed by anyone (save for trucks). Sure, there were times when I passed others or others passed me, but I really seemed to be doing average. If that's the case, and a real traffic engineering study should show that most drivers are doing about 75 on that stretch, wouldn't the limit have been raised to 75 instead of 70, or is someone trying to step it up just a bit to see if it has a negative (or positive) impact on crash data, and then raise it the rest of the way?
There were a bunch of speed limit increase bills that started floating around after Kitzhaber's troubles started, including some 75mph ones. I suspect that starting at this point was a calculated compromise, designed to gradually build support for finally bringing us in line with everywhere else. Once everyone realizes how nice it is to not have a statewide speed trap, I think the floodgates will open for more increases, and hopefully some that aren't Schustered into ORS 810.180. I think whomever is elected governor in 2016 will probably do some housecleaning in ODOT, which would help.
I would like to suggest that the 2016 Oregon Legislature take up a modest companion bill to 3402 that adds modest increases to just a few routes that were overlooked by HB 3402. These would be as follows:
Interstate 5 from the McKenzie River Bridge to the Junction with U.S. 20 and from the Junction of Salem Parkway/Chemawa Road Exit 260 to the French Prairie (formerly Baldock) Rest Area: Autos 70 m.p.h., Trucks 65 m.p.h.
Interstate 5 from the Junction with Interstate 205 to the Junction with Oregon 217: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
Interstate 5 from the Junction of Oregon 99 at Ashland Exit 11 to Hugo Exit 66 (excluding the existing 55 m.p.h. zone through Medford) and from the Junction of Oregon 99 at Exit 162 to the McKenzie River Bridge and from the Junction with U.S. 20 to the Junction with Salem Parkway: Trucks 60 m.p.h. (This would reduce the "split" by 5 m.p.h. from Ashland to Hugo and from Albany to Salem and eliminate it entirely through Eugene and Salem.)
Interstate 82 (excluding the Columbia River Bridge East Bound): Autos 70 m.p.h., Trucks 65 m.p.h.
Interstate 84 from Mile Marker 219 to Deadman Pass Exit 228 and from Mile Marker 332 to Rye Valley Exit 340: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 55 m.p.h. (Reduced from Autos 70, Trucks 65 as in HB 3402.)
Interstate 205 from 10th Street to the Washington State Boarder: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
Interstate 205 from the Junction with Interstate 5 to 10th Street: Trucks 60 m.p.h.
U.S. 26 from the Junction with Oregon 6 to Cedar Hills Boulevard: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
U.S. 26 from the Junction of Oregon 216 to Madras: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 60 m.p.h.
U.S. 97 from the California State Boarder to Klamath Falls and from Madras to Biggs: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 60 m.p.h.
Oregon 11 from Pendleton to Milton-Freewater: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 60 m.p.h.
Oregon 22 from Lancaster Drive to the Stayton/Sublimity Exit 13: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
As a side note, while I believe that "Split" Speed Limits for trucks should be limited to certain mountain and canyon freeways and expressways where autos can safely navigate curves and grades at higher speeds than trucks AND there are ample lanes for safe overtaking, I have retained most of them here to be consistent with otherwise existing Oregon laws and practices. I did specifically eliminate the split on three 60 m.p.h. segments of I-5, two existing and one proposed herein and one proposed 60 m.p.h. segment each of I-205, U.S. 26 and Oregon 22 as a way of easing Oregon into the concept of eventually eliminating most split speeds. I am specifically in favor of retaining them on mountainous stretches of I-5 and I-84.
On an unrelated note concerning 55 m.p.h. zones on non-Interstate highways, the text of HB 3402 reads:
SECTION 1. ORS 811.111 is amended to read:
811.111. (1) A person commits the offense of violating a speed limit if the person:... (I omitted the text between these lines in order to keep the post length from being excessive but saw nothing within the omitted text to contradict my point)... (F) Fifty-five miles per hour in locations not otherwise described in this paragraph.
In light of the wording which I highlighted above in red, what justification would there be for retaining the existing practice of posting "Speed XX" signs in 55 m.p.h. zones of non-Interstate highways? The way I read this, these zones are "speed limits' just as the others listed within the text. Am I missing something here or is it likely that a future MUTCD will require ALL "Speed XX" signs to be replaced with "Speed Limit" in the not to distant future?
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on July 28, 2015, 08:09:38 PM
As a side note, while I believe that "Split" Speed Limits for trucks should be limited to certain mountain and canyon freeways and expressways where autos can safely navigate curves and grades at higher speeds than trucks AND there are ample lanes for safe overtaking, I have retained most of them here to be consistent with otherwise existing Oregon laws and practices. I did specifically eliminate the split on three 60 m.p.h. segments of I-5, two existing and one proposed herein and one proposed 60 m.p.h. segment each of I-205, U.S. 26 and Oregon 22 as a way of easing Oregon into the concept of eventually eliminating most split speeds. I am specifically in favor of retaining them on mountainous stretches of I-5 and I-84.
Maybe I'm just not used to split speed limits, but it doesn't really seem like having a split of 5 mph would make all that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things...
Quote
On an unrelated note concerning 55 m.p.h. zones on non-Interstate highways, the text of HB 3402 reads:
SECTION 1. ORS 811.111 is amended to read:
811.111. (1) A person commits the offense of violating a speed limit if the person:... (I omitted the text between these lines in order to keep the post length from being excessive but saw nothing within the omitted text to contradict my point)... (F) Fifty-five miles per hour in locations not otherwise described in this paragraph.
In light of the wording which I highlighted above in red, what justification would there be for retaining the existing practice of posting "Speed XX" signs in 55 m.p.h. zones of non-Interstate highways? The way I read this, these zones are "speed limits' just as the others listed within the text. Am I missing something here or is it likely that a future MUTCD will require ALL "Speed XX" signs to be replaced with "Speed Limit" in the not to distant future?
Personally, I don't see any justification for using the existing "Speed XX" signs at all, 55 mph zones or otherwise. The message is ambiguous when everywhere else uses "Speed Limit XX".
The National MUTCD has never used the "Speed XX" sign (or at least hasn't in any recent edition) to indicate a speed limit. So unless Oregon has a state MUTCD that allows this, it's a nonstandard sign anyway. (Not unlike Oregon's "Rocks" warning sign instead of the national standard "Falling Rocks", prior to the 2009 symbol sign.)
If the actual wording associated with 55 zones in 811.111 has been amended to read "speed limit", then it's very likely that it'll mean the end of "Speed 55" signs as well.
Quote from: roadfro on July 29, 2015, 02:06:22 AM
Personally, I don't see any justification for using the existing "Speed XX" signs at all, 55 mph zones or otherwise. The message is ambiguous when everywhere else uses "Speed Limit XX".
The National MUTCD has never used the "Speed XX" sign (or at least hasn't in any recent edition) to indicate a speed limit. So unless Oregon has a state MUTCD that allows this, it's a nonstandard sign anyway. (Not unlike Oregon's "Rocks" warning sign instead of the national standard "Falling Rocks", prior to the 2009 symbol sign.)
The Oregon MUTCD supplement did allow the "Speed XX" sign (OR2-1) as a replacement for the "Speed Limit XX" sign (R2-1). The most recent revision of it [here] (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/oregon_supplement_mutcd_2009_edition.pdf) significantly curtailed its usage (Section 2B.13), however, with OR2-1 only to be used "on all Speed Limit signs (R2-1a) on highways outside City limits that are not interstate highways or school zones". ODOT's actual signing policy in recent times, however, has been to use R2-1 in most cases for non-55mph zones. There's quite a few spots on US-97, for instance, which run through unincorporated locales (i.e. Gilchrist and Chemult, which, legally, aren't cities), where ODOT has installed the "Speed Limit" signs. (There have been some newer installations where they've still used "Speed" signs--probably leftovers they had laying around.)
The original Oregon wording way back when was "Speed XX Miles", but "Miles" was later dropped off. The technical/complicated legal reasoning behind omitting the word "limit" had to do with Oregon's Basic Rule law, but in actual practice, most of the support for it was because of the fact that it made the most pertinent information on the sign--the numbers--much more visible. If you know how to interpret Oregon's "Speed" signs, the standard MUTCD "Speed Limit" sign is actually less readable, as its numbers are half the size (or less) than those on the Oregon design. The extra "Limit" verbiage takes up a lot of real estate on the sign, and not even the bolder font on the numbers really compensates for what is lost in readability.
It would be nice if the freeways west of the Cascades are addressed during the next legislative session. Disappointed that the final version of the bill spelled out specific routes only in Eastern Oregon, whereas, the original draft did not seem to call out specific routes, rather, seemed to legislate state-wide increases.
IMO, the next series of increases should be:
*- truck speed shown in (XX)
"Rural" areas:
1.) I-5 from I-205 south to Salem: 65 (55) to 70 (65)
2.) I-5 from Salem to Eugene: 65 (55) to 70 (65)
3.) I-5 in Southern Oregon all areas currently posted 65 (55) to 70 (65)
4.) US 26 from Cornelius pass Rd to OR-6: 55 to 65 (60)
5.) I-84 (Gorge): 65 (55) to 70 (65)
Portland metro area:
1.) I-5 from Washington State border to Fremont Bridge: 55 to 60
2.) I-205 all areas currently posted 55 to 65 (60)
3.) I-84 from I-5 to I-205: 55 to 60
4.) US 26 from I-405 to Sylvan: 50 to 55
5.) US 26 from Cornelius Pass Rd to Sylvan: 55 mph to 65 (60)
6.) I-84 east of I-205: all areas currently posted 60 (55) to 65 (60)
7.) I-5 curves to I-205: 55 to 65 (60)
8.) OR-217: 55 to 60
Quote from: portlandexpos04 on July 30, 2015, 01:18:08 PM
It would be nice if the freeways west of the Cascades are addressed during the next legislative session. Disappointed that the final version of the bill spelled out specific routes only in Eastern Oregon, whereas, the original draft did not seem to call out specific routes, rather, seemed to legislate state-wide increases.
It's a start, but as a Nevada transplant to Portland (and also a Democrat) it was interesting to talk to politically-minded friends (who are lifelong Portlanders) and hear them basically shrug, if not straight up oppose, higher speed limits. Just like a sales tax and self-serve fuel, I think higher speed limits just aren't in Oregon's DNA.
The thing about Oregon is the speed limits are so lightly enforced anyway... I've driven the length of I-84 in Oregon a dozen times and I've probably seen OSP patrols on half those trips.
Quote from: NickCPDX on July 31, 2015, 01:35:06 PM
Quote from: portlandexpos04 on July 30, 2015, 01:18:08 PM
It's a start, but as a Nevada transplant to Portland (and also a Democrat) it was interesting to talk to politically-minded friends (who are lifelong Portlanders) and hear them basically shrug, if not straight up oppose, higher speed limits. Just like a sales tax and self-serve fuel, I think higher speed limits just aren't in Oregon's DNA.
The thing about Oregon is the speed limits are so lightly enforced anyway... I've driven the length of I-84 in Oregon a dozen times and I've probably seen OSP patrols on half those trips.
I moved to California about 10 years ago, but before then it seemed like speed limits on Portland metro freeways, especially the Sunset (US 26), were heavily enforced by Portland PD, Beaverton PD and Washington Co. Sheriffs. I also remembered Portland PD regularly enforcing I-205. Maybe things have changed. You're right about OSP, though, even back then I rarely saw OSP patrols in rural areas and pretty much never in the Portland metro.
It seems that OSP pretty much leaves the speed enforcement on Portland metro area freeways to local agencies. This in contrast to neighboring states where the state patrol or highway patrol does all the speed enforcement state-wide on highways/freeways. At least in the Bay Area, you NEVER see a local agency enforcing speed limits on interstates... its all CHP.
My guess is that it might have something to do with OSP being a "state police" agency as opposed to a "patrol" agency and therefore having responsibilities other than enforcing the vehicle code, as well as budget constraints and OSP funding.
OSP trolls I-205 on a regular basis.
Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2015, 05:57:21 PM
OSP trolls I-205 on a regular basis.
Why the fuck is I-205 still 55? It should easily be 65. And after I-5 and I-84 got raised to 60 through Salem, Eugene and Gresham, I don't see why 205 couldn't get the bump to 60 as well.
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 03, 2015, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2015, 05:57:21 PM
OSP trolls I-205 on a regular basis.
Why the fuck is I-205 still 55? It should easily be 65. And after I-5 and I-84 got raised to 60 through Salem, Eugene and Gresham, I don't see why 205 couldn't get the bump to 60 as well.
Because Reasons.
Interesting article about how this bill affects the Basic Speed Rule. http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/3414770-151/oregon-speed-limit-hike-not-so-basic-change
I always thought I understood how the Basic Speed Rule worked in the past (eg. the 55 is still a maximum limit, but conditions may require going slower), but article makes me question my understanding of it. I'm mildly confused. Does this mean the basic rule no longer applies at all on roads with "Speed Limit" signs? That doesn't make sense. If anything, raising speed limits to 65 makes the basic rule even more necessary.
For example, US-20. In the day, I feel comfortable going 70-75. At night, I feel comfortable at 65. During icy or otherwise inclement conditions I may only feel comfortable at 55 MPH. With the SPEED 55 signs, the basic rule never really was relevant unless it was bad enough that I needed to go below 55. With the limit at 65, bad conditions are more likely to require slowing below the limit to remain safe. Hopefully that makes sense.
^ Thanks for posting that article. Interesting interpretation of basic rule and why the signs say "speed" as opposed to "speed limit".
The explanation doesn't jive well with me, But maybe I am used to Nevada's law:
Quote
NRS 484B.600 Basic rule; additional penalties for violation committed in work zone or if driver is proximate cause of collision with pedestrian or person riding bicycle.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
(Note that the "75" will turn into "80" soon, with passage of the recent speed limit bill at the legislature that was signed by Governor Sandoval.)Seems like Oregon could craft a similar basic speed rule that would not be so easily misinterpreted...
I had forgotten that Oregon now has a Governor Brown. I first saw the title and wondered how Jerry affected Oregon's speed limits.
ODOT Adjusting passing zones for the increased speed limits.
Quote from: corco on July 23, 2015, 03:09:53 PM
70 MPH on US 95 is going to economically cripple Jordan Valley though...
How so? (I don't know the area).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: corco on July 23, 2015, 03:09:53 PM
70 MPH on US 95 is going to economically cripple Jordan Valley though...
How so? (I don't know the area).
Tickets won't be as frequently given out. Jordan Valley is a wide spot in the road where cops like to sit and catch the zoom-zooms.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on September 07, 2015, 12:29:21 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2015, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: corco on July 23, 2015, 03:09:53 PM
70 MPH on US 95 is going to economically cripple Jordan Valley though...
How so? (I don't know the area).
Tickets won't be as frequently given out. Jordan Valley is a wide spot in the road where cops like to sit and catch the zoom-zooms.
Rick
They'll focus on where it drops to 35 (or whatever) through town then (which is probably where they focus anyways; if not, that's where they should be and not out in the open stretches).
I imagine they're currently focusing on the 55 zones because they can get more money that way. Speed enforcement is almost never about safety, no matter what the government says.
Quote from: doorknob60 on September 04, 2015, 02:17:46 PM
ODOT Adjusting passing zones for the increased speed limits.
Okay if they were painting them based on the speed limit rather than the 85th percentile speed (which shouldn't change too much as a result of this), that's bad.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2015, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on September 04, 2015, 02:17:46 PM
ODOT Adjusting passing zones for the increased speed limits.
Okay if they were painting them based on the speed limit rather than the 85th percentile speed (which shouldn't change too much as a result of this), that's bad.
I don't disagree. Which might further make the roads safer after the limits get increased. I hope this has positive results in accident rates, and ODOT and/or the legislature can be convinced to expand this to other parts of the state based on that.
I found this map of the new speed zones on the ODOT website (PDF): https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/Documents/Speed%20Increase%20Map.pdf
It highlighted some holes I didn't think of before. The obvious one I mentioned a while back is US-97 north of the 197 split, but US-97 between Klamath Falls and the California border also has missed the mark. That is ridiculous, I hope that doesn't become a speed trap (because it's 65 in CA and 65 north of K Falls). I'd also like to see this applied to some sections of cross-cascades highways like US-20, OR-126, OR-58, and most of all US-26. Not all sections of the highways, but good chunks of them.
At this point, "hard-coding" in speed limits into legislation is not the way to handle the rest of these highways, it's too complicated an issue for that. The law should be changed so speeds up to 70 are allowed to be posted on any highway at the discretion of ODOT (and then we hope they actually do it). Maybe setting the "default" limits to 65 on 2 laners and 70 on interstates (changed from the current defaults of 55 and 65) would do the trick, and then ODOT could lower them in sections as necessary from there.
Also, I find it both funny and sad that trucks can drive faster on US-97 than they can on I-5. The truck limit should be raised to 60 (or abolished) statewide.
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 12, 2016, 09:25:14 PM
At this point, "hard-coding" in speed limits into legislation is not the way to handle the rest of these highways, it's too complicated an issue for that. The law should be changed so speeds up to 70 are allowed to be posted on any highway at the discretion of ODOT (and then we hope they actually do it). Maybe setting the "default" limits to 65 on 2 laners and 70 on interstates (changed from the current defaults of 55 and 65) would do the trick, and then ODOT could lower them in sections as necessary from there.
I *think* the law
did give ODOT the discretion, but they never exercised it, thus the legislative directive. Not positive though.
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 12, 2016, 09:25:14 PM
It highlighted some holes I didn't think of before. The obvious one I mentioned a while back is US-97 north of the 197 split, but US-97 between Klamath Falls and the California border also has missed the mark. That is ridiculous, I hope that doesn't become a speed trap (because it's 65 in CA and 65 north of K Falls). I'd also like to see this applied to some sections of cross-cascades highways like US-20, OR-126, OR-58, and most of all US-26. Not all sections of the highways, but good chunks of them.
When *can't* you drive 65 on the Santiam Pass feeders? I've seldom seen a cop out there and never had a problem going 65-70. It's always seemed to me that Oregon's 55 speed limits are understood by all to be a little flexible; I worry that by adding in specific 65-70 zones, we're going to lose some of the wiggle room we've had in the past.
As for US 26, you could make the speed limit 80 but until you make it 4 lanes from Redmond to Sandy, you're still going to be mostly going 55 because of all the traffic and limited passing opportunities.
Quote from: NickCPDX on January 13, 2016, 02:18:41 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 12, 2016, 09:25:14 PM
At this point, "hard-coding" in speed limits into legislation is not the way to handle the rest of these highways, it's too complicated an issue for that. The law should be changed so speeds up to 70 are allowed to be posted on any highway at the discretion of ODOT (and then we hope they actually do it). Maybe setting the "default" limits to 65 on 2 laners and 70 on interstates (changed from the current defaults of 55 and 65) would do the trick, and then ODOT could lower them in sections as necessary from there.
I *think* the law did give ODOT the discretion, but they never exercised it, thus the legislative directive. Not positive though.
The relevant law (ORS 810.180 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/810.180)) did give ODOT discretion to post (up to) 70 MPH, but only on interstate highways.
Quote
ORS 810.180
(3) The Department of Transportation may establish by rule designated speeds on any specified section of interstate highway [...]
(a) The department may not establish a designated speed under this subsection of more than:
(B) Seventy miles per hour for all other vehicles.
(4) (a) The department may establish, pursuant to a process established by rule, a designated speed on a state highway outside of a city. A designated speed established under this subsection [...] may not exceed 55 miles per hour.
I remember pulling up the bill that was voted on and passed, but since I don't have it on me now, I wonder if the maximum limit under (4) above has been raised to 70 (since US 95 will now be posted at 70 and lots of other mileage is going from a 55 limit to 65) or if the new limits are "hard-coded" overriding the 55 maximum but otherwise keeping the 55 maximum in place for roads not part of the increase.
Cannot wait for the day ODOT raises the limit of US 26 west of Portland to something higher than 55 - at least on the freeway portion. I understand when it's congested, but otherwise when there is light traffic, it can easily handle 70+. Raising the limit and then posting advisory speed signs (like what was done on I-5, I-405, and OR 217 in the area) might be a good idea, too.
Quote from: Ace10 on January 13, 2016, 02:46:04 PM
Cannot wait for the day ODOT raises the limit of US 26 west of Portland to something higher than 55 - at least on the freeway portion. I understand when it's congested, but otherwise when there is light traffic, it can easily handle 70+. Raising the limit and then posting advisory speed signs (like what was done on I-5, I-405, and OR 217 in the area) might be a good idea, too.
Good luck. Every time I've had a conversation with someone about this, I get a very flat "It's not an interstate highway, so why would you raise the speed limit?" Just an Oregon thing.
^ Right, it's more wishful thinking and I know it will probably be a ways off if it happens at all. However, I'd love to see a recent engineering study that takes vehicle speeds on the freeway portion of US 26 into account, just to see how fast people are actually driving.
Plus, Oregon has a few freeways that are off the Interstate system but seem to conform pretty well to Interstate standards. Portions of I-84 hit 60 and 65 mph limits not far from Portland, and even the windy Columbia River Gorge has a 65 mph limit. The logic behind why a six-laned, grade-separated freeway with shoulders is stuck at 55 mph, just because it lacks an interstate designation, while a curvier, narrower Interstate highway can have a 65 mph limit escapes me sometimes.
I posted the suggestion below on this thread on July 28, 2015. Since that time I have shared it with several Oregon state Senators and Representatives and have received some positive feed back from a few. While this proposal falls short of the wishes of many, I sincerely believe that with some encouragement, the Oregon House and Senate could be persuaded to pass this interim measure (that is better than nothing at all) during the 2017 legislative session, if not the impending short 2016 session that I was originally trying for. I would like to encourage anyone who reads this to pass it on to as many Oregon state law makers as they may feel that they have time to contact and encourage them to support this modest and reasonable proposal. Thank you.
Original post, 07.28.2015: I would like to suggest that the 2016 Oregon Legislature take up a modest companion bill to 3402 that adds modest increases to just a few routes that were overlooked by HB 3402. These would be as follows:
Interstate 5 from the McKenzie River Bridge to the Junction with U.S. 20 and from the Junction of Salem Parkway/Chemawa Road Exit 260 to the French Prairie (formerly Baldock) Rest Area: Autos 70 m.p.h., Trucks 65 m.p.h.
Interstate 5 from the Junction with Interstate 205 to the Junction with Oregon 217: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
Interstate 5 from the Junction of Oregon 99 at Ashland Exit 11 to Hugo Exit 66 (excluding the existing 55 m.p.h. zone through Medford) and from the Junction of Oregon 99 at Exit 162 to the McKenzie River Bridge and from the Junction with U.S. 20 to the Junction with Salem Parkway: Trucks 60 m.p.h. (This would reduce the "split" by 5 m.p.h. from Ashland to Hugo and from Albany to Salem and eliminate it entirely through Eugene and Salem.)
Interstate 82 (excluding the Columbia River Bridge East Bound): Autos 70 m.p.h., Trucks 65 m.p.h.
Interstate 84 from Mile Marker 219 to Deadman Pass Exit 228 and from Mile Marker 332 to Rye Valley Exit 340: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 55 m.p.h. (Reduced from Autos 70, Trucks 65 as in HB 3402.) (Amendment to original post): Reasoning for this is based upon numerous sharp curves and, in the case of the "Cabbage Hill" section, long, steep grades, that I feel are not appropriate for the increases authorized by H.B. 3402.
Interstate 205 from 10th Street to the Washington State Boarder: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
Interstate 205 from the Junction with Interstate 5 to 10th Street: Trucks 60 m.p.h.
U.S. 26 from the Junction with Oregon 6 to Cedar Hills Boulevard: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
U.S. 26 from the Junction of Oregon 216 to Madras: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 60 m.p.h.
(Amendment to original post): U.S. 26 from Madras to Prineville
U.S. 97 from the California State Boarder to Klamath Falls and from Madras to Biggs: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 60 m.p.h.
Oregon 11 from Pendleton to Milton-Freewater: Autos 65 m.p.h., Trucks 60 m.p.h.
Oregon 22 from Lancaster Drive to the Stayton/Sublimity Exit 13: All Vehicles 60 m.p.h.
As a side note, while I believe that "Split" Speed Limits for trucks should be limited to certain mountain and canyon freeways and expressways where autos can safely navigate curves and grades at higher speeds than trucks AND there are ample lanes for safe overtaking, I have retained most of them here to be consistent with otherwise existing Oregon laws and practices. I did specifically eliminate the split on three 60 m.p.h. segments of I-5, two existing and one proposed herein and one proposed 60 m.p.h. segment each of I-205, U.S. 26 and Oregon 22 as a way of easing Oregon into the concept of eventually eliminating most split speeds. I am specifically in favor of retaining them on mountainous stretches of I-5 and I-84.
Quote from: Ace10 on January 13, 2016, 04:41:45 PM
The logic behind why a six-laned, grade-separated freeway with shoulders is stuck at 55 mph, just because it lacks an interstate designation, while a curvier, narrower Interstate highway can have a 65 mph limit escapes me sometimes.
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).
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 13, 2016, 06:03:07 PM<snip>
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2016, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: Ace10 on January 13, 2016, 04:41:45 PM
The logic behind why a six-laned, grade-separated freeway with shoulders is stuck at 55 mph, just because it lacks an interstate designation, while a curvier, narrower Interstate highway can have a 65 mph limit escapes me sometimes.
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 (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).
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) but it's posted at 55 currently. I'd bet after the intersections are grade separated, it would go to 60. After all, WA 14 in the same area is posted at 60 except for the westernmost bit before the I-5 interchange.
Quote from: Ace10 on January 13, 2016, 06:18:20 PM
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. (http://goo.gl/PKIULC)
Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2016, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: Ace10 on January 13, 2016, 06:18:20 PM
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. (http://goo.gl/PKIULC)
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2016, 06:04:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 14, 2016, 05:26:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 14, 2016, 05:26:38 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2016, 05:42:12 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 14, 2016, 05:26:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 14, 2016, 05:26:38 PM
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).
Quote from: Ace10 on January 13, 2016, 06:18:20 PM
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: NickCPDX on January 16, 2016, 03:55:17 PM
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.)
Quote from: NickCPDX on January 16, 2016, 03:55:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on January 16, 2016, 01:55:41 PM
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:
Quote
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.
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.
Maybe they considered Oregon a lost cause.
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.
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.
Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2016, 05:43:35 PM
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).
That bill failed. (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3414)
Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2016, 05:43:35 PM
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.
Quote from: NickCPDX on January 20, 2016, 04:09:19 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: NickCPDX on February 05, 2016, 01:15:51 PM
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.
Passed the House unanimously.
I agree with Thunderbyrd316. I'll take whatever I can get. Keep trying.
ODOT posted a map on their Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/OregonDOT/photos/a.113948145327661.15971.113002812088861/988120014577132/?type=3&theater) showing all of the increase locations
Out of the Senate and off to the governor. Passed 26-1.
Quote from: NickCPDX on February 18, 2016, 06:40:05 PM
Out of the Senate and off to the governor. Passed 26-1.
Shame on Laurie Monnes-Anderson. She was the lone "nay".
Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:39:45 PM
ODOT posted a map on their Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/OregonDOT/photos/a.113948145327661.15971.113002812088861/988120014577132/?type=3&theater) showing all of the increase locations
awfully nice of them to have that in place for my roadtrip through Oregon next month!
Quote from: NickCPDX on February 18, 2016, 06:40:05 PM
Out of the Senate and off to the governor. Passed 26-1.
Yipee! :sombrero: :colorful: :cool: :-D :D :) :nod: :biggrin: :spin: :clap: :bigass:
Next assignment: I-5, I-205, Ore.22 and Sunset. Let's make it happen!
Don't forget I-82.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 20, 2016, 03:11:13 AM
Don't forget I-82.
That was covered in the amendment that just passed.
Signed by the governor, effective 3/1/16. I wonder if ODOT can just lump the work in with the ongoing work elsewhere in the state.
If I had to guess, because both of these sections are relatively short, I suspect that it will only be a few days at most past the first that they will be posted.
For I-82 it might be that simple, but I doubt it will be for US 97. ODOT had to go through and redo all of the passing lanes in the areas with raised speed limits, for obvious reasons. I mean, that still might only take a week to engineer & stripe, but I don't think they'll just go out and drop the new speed limit signs.
Over on ODOT's Flickr page, they've got some good pictures showing how they used LIDAR to re-map passing lanes. Interesting stuff.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/oregondot/
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on February 19, 2016, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on February 18, 2016, 06:40:05 PM
Out of the Senate and off to the governor. Passed 26-1.
Yipee! :sombrero: :colorful: :cool: :-D :D :) :nod: :biggrin: :spin: :clap: :bigass:
Next assignment: I-5, I-205, Ore.22 and Sunset. Let's make it happen!
Meh. The speed limits are not the reason I-205 is slow. Or I-5, on most days.
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 06:18:58 PM
Meh. The speed limits are not the reason I-205 is slow. Or I-5, on most days.
This. There is literally no problem here. The only way to get a ticket on this freeway is to A) Be going way faster than the rest of traffic, which means at least 70, and B) Be paying so poor of attention to the road that you don't notice that OSP/PPB are hanging out at their usual-and-consistent "hiding" places (Strawberry, Stark and Airport). And for the other 20 hours of the day, you're lucky to do 55.
Plus, I gotta be honest — I live 800 feet from I-205. It's loud enough with a 55 mph speed limit. It's not going to get quieter at 70, and there is no magical money that's going to fall from heaven to get us soundwalls.
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 01, 2016, 09:30:54 PM
I live 800 feet from I-205. It's loud enough with a 55 mph speed limit. It's not going to get quieter at 70, and there is no magical money that's going to fall from heaven to get us soundwalls.
As best as I can measure using Google Earth, I live 803 feet from the center divide of I-5. Except for sirens and horns, I cannot hear any traffic noise through double-pane windows. If the noise is bothering you, double-pane or triple-pane windows might solve your problem.
Quote from: mcarling on March 01, 2016, 09:51:57 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 01, 2016, 09:30:54 PM
I live 800 feet from I-205. It's loud enough with a 55 mph speed limit. It's not going to get quieter at 70, and there is no magical money that's going to fall from heaven to get us soundwalls.
As best as I can measure using Google Earth, I live 803 feet from the center divide of I-5. Except for sirens and horns, I cannot hear any traffic noise through double-pane windows. If the noise is bothering you, double-pane or triple-pane windows might solve your problem.
Had a triple-pane put in my bedroom in 2012 and right now I can hear the roar of cars through the window. My phone says it's about 60 db. Plus, a triple-pane window doesn't stop any noise when it's summer and an open window is how you cool your house down. With the windows open, more like 75 db.
Here's some pictures.
I-84 near Biggs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZOJYGdG.jpg&hash=010234f737ecdf22cd310e4b8375b675ef5276aa)
VMS on I-84 in Baker City. I find this funny. See, if you wanted no more need to speed, you should have raised it to 80 instead of 70 :biggrin:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FK5S0JcV.jpg&hash=e603fa24dcfca69a8047408ca30fbfc741dfddf0)
It appears ODOT is already going full kneejerk (http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_rolls_back_speed_limit.html#incart_river_home) . . .
Quote from: Tarkus on June 07, 2016, 03:41:16 PM
It appears ODOT is already going full kneejerk (http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_rolls_back_speed_limit.html#incart_river_home) . . .
In that article, it mentions ODOT will review the temporary rollbacks with the state Speed Zone Review Panel.
Seriously...There's a board for this?!?!
Quote from: roadfro on June 07, 2016, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on June 07, 2016, 03:41:16 PM
It appears ODOT is already going full kneejerk (http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_rolls_back_speed_limit.html#incart_river_home) . . .
In that article, it mentions ODOT will review the temporary rollbacks with the state Speed Zone Review Panel.
Seriously...There's a board for this?!?!
Yeah, no shit. I'm sure Washington has something just like it too.
Here's a bright idea: raise the limit, and wait
at least two years before changing it to anything else. That way, there's a comprehensive set of data you can review. Otherwise, a change appears to be a kneejerk reaction.
More evidence US 97 should be twinned.
Quote from: Tarkus on June 07, 2016, 03:41:16 PM
It appears ODOT is already going full kneejerk (http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_rolls_back_speed_limit.html#incart_river_home) . . .
Within the article...
QuoteResearch for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program in 2006 found increasing the speed limit from 55 to 65 mph raises the number of crashes by about 3 percent, while the number of fatal injuries increases by 28 percent. However, individual states have reported mixed results upon raising speed limits.
If that's the case, shouldn't fatals be up nationwide? Instead, they're down. And drunks still cause about 1/3 of all fatals, another figure that percentage-wise should have gone down if speeding has caused more fatals.
Maybe, but there's all sorts of other possible explanations for overall fatalities going down. Maybe there's so much time traffic is at a crawl that no one's going fast enough to get in a fatal collision. Maybe the number of people under 25 with drivers' licenses is going down. It really needs to an honest investigator to check out all the angles, but it seems like most people who study the situation have one axe to grind or another.
Omg! The speed limit went back down on 35 of the 400+ miles that got increased! Sky. Falling.
Seriously, seems like the Legislature attacked it with a broad stroke and ODOT, being technical engineers, are fine-tuning. Is that so bad?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2016, 08:01:21 PM
Omg! The speed limit went back down on 35 of the 400+ miles that got increased! Sky. Falling.
Seriously, seems like the Legislature attacked it with a broad stroke and ODOT, being technical engineers, are fine-tuning. Is that so bad?
Sounds to me like they are in the pocket of the insurance lobby and using this as an excuse to get rid of something they didn't like in the first place. If ODOT wasn't adamantly against higher speed limits, they would have been there over a decade ago, when the legislature raised the default limits... and ODOT promptly lowered them all back, claiming that every single mile of roadway in the state had unusually unsafe conditions. ODOT will do anything and say anything to get rid of the changes the legislature courageously implemented to save Oregon from ODOT's malicious stupidity.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2016, 08:01:43 PM
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 06:39:18 PM
More evidence US 97 should be twinned.
This.
The stretches where ODOT is rescinding the limits have a lot of at-grade intersections, because they're largely developed agricultural zones with slow moving tractors etc. So I hate to say it, but ODOT might be in the right here. Until they get rid of those intersections, at least.
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2016, 08:01:43 PM
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 06:39:18 PM
More evidence US 97 should be twinned.
This.
The stretches where ODOT is rescinding the limits have a lot of at-grade intersections, because they're largely developed agricultural zones with slow moving tractors etc. So I hate to say it, but ODOT might be in the right here. Until they get rid of those intersections, at least.
That's how I saw the issue too.
US 101's section between downtown North Bend and downtown Coos Bay had a short 45 MPH stretch with 40 on the rest. That 45 limit got placed on the whole stretch. So far so good! I was surprised at this elevated speed being posted as ODOT is known for being rather stodgy about speed limits.
Rick
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2016, 08:01:43 PM
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 06:39:18 PM
More evidence US 97 should be twinned.
This.
The stretches where ODOT is rescinding the limits have a lot of at-grade intersections, because they're largely developed agricultural zones with slow moving tractors etc. So I hate to say it, but ODOT might be in the right here. Until they get rid of those intersections, at least.
Yet TxDOT seems to handle it just fine.
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2016, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2016, 08:01:43 PM
Quote from: opspe on June 07, 2016, 06:39:18 PM
More evidence US 97 should be twinned.
This.
The stretches where ODOT is rescinding the limits have a lot of at-grade intersections, because they're largely developed agricultural zones with slow moving tractors etc. So I hate to say it, but ODOT might be in the right here. Until they get rid of those intersections, at least.
Yet TxDOT seems to handle it just fine.
TxDOT, or the drivers on the roads in Texas?
I have very little issue with the sections they're raising. Ontario to Vale annoys me, only because that section always felt to last forever (despite it being short), and hard to keep a good speed with the traffic and lack of passing opportunities. I have not been on this road since the 65 MPH raise, so I'm not sure how that affected the situation. But that was always one of my least favorite parts driving from Bend to Idaho.
The 1 mile near La Pine and the 6 miles near Bend, those are on the edge of city limits with some development, no problems there.
Now, Madras to Terrebonne. That highway is horrible and dangerous. Many at grade intersections, a lot of traffic, and few passing opportunities and, most importantly, missing turning lanes! There's some 4 way intersections with no turning lanes whatsoever. So the traffic traveling 55-65 or more may have to come to a complete stop if one person wants to make a left turn. That is dangerous at 65 or 55. In the road's current condition, do I support lowering it back to 55? Yes. It will still be dangerous, but probably less so. But, I really hope that is a short term workaround, and that ODOT can upgrade that section of highway to modern standards, and then put the limit back to 65.
Ultimately, if these pieces of highway were in Idaho or California (states that are generally considered good about posting speed limits on 2 laners, or at least not too many complaints), they would probably be 55 there too.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2016, 08:01:21 PM
Omg! The speed limit went back down on 35 of the 400+ miles that got increased! Sky. Falling.
Seriously, seems like the Legislature attacked it with a broad stroke and ODOT, being technical engineers, are fine-tuning. Is that so bad?
Engineers that work for the government have a weird way of always making technical decisions that respect the politics their bosses want then to come to. Not their fault, that's just how it is. Engineering isn't nearly as objective as it is made out to be. That much is evident by the massive variations in speed limits and what DOTs consider "safe" across the country. According to ODOT's policies, every single driver in Montana should already be dead.
I'm sure the evaluation criteria for determining where limits should be lowered weren't set solely by engineers (even if they were, they would be set in the context of a Vision Zero campaign or whatever that reflects the priorities of their bosses), and an engineer isn't going to find themselves in an ethical dilemma if there's some evidence somewhere to back up their decision, and there's evidence that "speed kills," even if much of it has been debunked.
As someone who loudly and frequently complains about Oregon's generally ridiculously low speed limits, with the possible exception of the segment between Vale and Cairo, I really do not have a problem with these particular reductions.
One question I do have, will the new signs say "SPEED 55" or "SPEED LIMIT 55"? As I have stated in an above post on this thread, I can find no legal justification for the continued use of the "SPEED 55" sign in Oregon. Furthermore, if any existing "SPEED LIMIT 65" signs will be effected, (other than needing to be relocated or simply removed), it would make a lot more sense to just place a "5" over the "6" rather than replace the brand new (and ridiculously overpriced) signs.
(On an unrelated note, on Monday morning I saw the first "SPEED LIMIT 55" sign I have seen in Oregon NOT on an Interstate highway. It was located at the east end of Marine Drive in Troutdale. Because I had to continue west on to I-84 I have no idea if there are any more on Marine Drive.)
Most likely they will be 'SPEED LIMIT xx' signs; I'd be very surprised if Oregon ever erects any new 'SPEED xx' signs.
ODOT's sign policy on the Speed vs. Speed Limit matter is still pretty inconsistent, but they side heavily toward the latter now. It had been that if the road in question was outside of city limits or was a statutory 55mph zone (not established through a Speed Zone Order, or SZO), that the "Speed" verbiage was technically correct, whereas any such sign in city limits or on an interstate was to use "Speed Limit".
Some ODOT Regions, like Region 4 (Central Oregon), were more aggressive about adopting the "Speed Limit" wording, and used it for anything that wasn't a statutory 55mph zone, even if it was outside city limits (i.e. Chemult and Gilchrist on US-97, which aren't incorporated and don't have city limits), whereas Region 2 (Willamette Valley outside Portland Metro/Coast) did install some new "Speed 45" signs on OR-99W in Rickreall last year (which is in unincorporated Polk County). Looking at other road authorities, Washington County LUT seems to follow the incorporated/unincorporated policy as to what wording to use.
The policy with the limit increase created situations where there were non-statutory 55mph zones established through an SZO (buffer zones going in/out of the new 65 and 70 zones), as well as non-Interstate statutory zones above 55mph. The new 65/70 zones were supposed to be "Speed Limit" wording across the board. Given that these temporary reductions are being created through temporary SZOs, and many of them are in Region 4, I'd say it's a definite that they're going to be "Speed Limit" signs.
As far as the decreases, a couple of them are pretty inconsequential, but the longer ones bug me. I'd have less of a problem if they went down to 60 instead of all the way back down to the infernal double nickel, and it also bothers me that they're doing it only three months after the increases went into effect. It smacks way too much of an opening salvo.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 10, 2016, 04:01:20 AM
Most likely they will be 'SPEED LIMIT xx' signs; I'd be very surprised if Oregon ever erects any new 'SPEED xx' signs.
There is a brand new "SPEED 35" sign at the east entrance to the soon to be opened "Sunrise Highway" (Ore. 224) in Clackamas. (By the way, that is a ridiculously low posted speed for what is supposed to be an expressway. I am hoping it is intended to be temporary while some final work is completed after opening but after all, this is Oregon. Uuughh!!!) :(
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 07:56:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 10, 2016, 04:01:20 AM
Most likely they will be 'SPEED LIMIT xx' signs; I'd be very surprised if Oregon ever erects any new 'SPEED xx' signs.
There is a brand new "SPEED 35" sign at the east entrance to the soon to be opened "Sunrise Highway" (Ore. 224) in Clackamas. (By the way, that is a ridiculously low posted speed for what is supposed to be an expressway. I am hoping it is intended to be temporary while some final work is completed after opening but after all, this is Oregon. Uuughh!!!) :(
I wonder if that corner where the expressway curves around the warehouses coming up to the intersection is too tight for anything faster than 35. Aerial imagery makes it look like a 90° turn with a 1000' radius.
Quote from: opspe on June 10, 2016, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 07:56:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 10, 2016, 04:01:20 AM
Most likely they will be 'SPEED LIMIT xx' signs; I'd be very surprised if Oregon ever erects any new 'SPEED xx' signs.
There is a brand new "SPEED 35" sign at the east entrance to the soon to be opened "Sunrise Highway" (Ore. 224) in Clackamas. (By the way, that is a ridiculously low posted speed for what is supposed to be an expressway. I am hoping it is intended to be temporary while some final work is completed after opening but after all, this is Oregon. Uuughh!!!) :(
I wonder if that corner where the expressway curves around the warehouses coming up to the intersection is too tight for anything faster than 35. Aerial imagery makes it look like a 90° turn with a 1000' radius.
The sign is about half way around the curve but clearly visible from Ore. 212 and 122nd. There are no "advisory" signs for the curve at all. The "SPEED 35" sign appears to be meant to apply to the entire "expressway".
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 08:57:15 PM
The sign is about half way around the curve but clearly visible from Ore. 212 and 122nd. There are no "advisory" signs for the curve at all. The "SPEED 35" sign appears to be meant to apply to the entire "expressway".
Been a while since I've been down there, but I seem to recall that the speed limit is 35 on OR 212/224 as well. I guess maybe avoiding all the truck traffic from the Fred Meyer distribution center is what makes the new road "express" then?
Given that there's no speed zone order for the corridor, I'd have to imagine it's a construction speed (which would also explain the sign wording). There's no other legal means by which to post a 35mph speed zone in Oregon without an SZO.
Quote from: opspe on June 10, 2016, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 08:57:15 PM
The sign is about half way around the curve but clearly visible from Ore. 212 and 122nd. There are no "advisory" signs for the curve at all. The "SPEED 35" sign appears to be meant to apply to the entire "expressway".
Been a while since I've been down there, but I seem to recall that the speed limit is 35 on OR 212/224 as well. I guess maybe avoiding all the truck traffic from the Fred Meyer distribution center is what makes the new road "express" then?
The posted speed on Ore. 212 drops to 35 at 106th. There is actually a brand new "SPEED LIMIT 45" on Ore. 212 / 224 west bound just before 122nd. (Where Ore. 224 will turn on to the new "expressway". Only Ore. 212 will continue west from 122nd to I-205 on the original alignment.)
Quote from: Tarkus on June 10, 2016, 07:27:36 PM
ODOT's sign policy on the Speed vs. Speed Limit matter is still pretty inconsistent, but they side heavily toward the latter now. It had been that if the road in question was outside of city limits or was a statutory 55mph zone (not established through a Speed Zone Order, or SZO), that the "Speed" verbiage was technically correct, whereas any such sign in city limits or on an interstate was to use "Speed Limit".
Some ODOT Regions, like Region 4 (Central Oregon), were more aggressive about adopting the "Speed Limit" wording, and used it for anything that wasn't a statutory 55mph zone, even if it was outside city limits (i.e. Chemult and Gilchrist on US-97, which aren't incorporated and don't have city limits), whereas Region 2 (Willamette Valley outside Portland Metro/Coast) did install some new "Speed 45" signs on OR-99W in Rickreall last year (which is in unincorporated Polk County). Looking at other road authorities, Washington County LUT seems to follow the incorporated/unincorporated policy as to what wording to use.
The policy with the limit increase created situations where there were non-statutory 55mph zones established through an SZO (buffer zones going in/out of the new 65 and 70 zones), as well as non-Interstate statutory zones above 55mph. The new 65/70 zones were supposed to be "Speed Limit" wording across the board. Given that these temporary reductions are being created through temporary SZOs, and many of them are in Region 4, I'd say it's a definite that they're going to be "Speed Limit" signs.
As far as the decreases, a couple of them are pretty inconsequential, but the longer ones bug me. I'd have less of a problem if they went down to 60 instead of all the way back down to the infernal double nickel, and it also bothers me that they're doing it only three months after the increases went into effect. It smacks way too much of an opening salvo.
An update about the U.S. 97 speed limit reduction between Madras and Terrebonne. The brand new "Speed 55" signs are up. None say "Speed Limit". Interestingly there are 2 "Speed Limit 55" signs on U.S. 97 south bound, one just before the Redmond Bypass and one just south of Redmond before the fairgrounds exit. I am in Redmond for the Demo Derby they had today (I came directly from the one last night in Silverdale Washington by Bremerton) and will be driving south to Bend (and perhaps just a bit further south to check out the speed zone transition south of Bend on U.S. 97) tomorrow morning before heading home to Clackamas.
In my opinion the speed limit on the reduced part of U.S. 97 probably should be 60. (55 is a little slow for a big chunk of it.)
I just drove through there on Friday, and while 55 might be a bit on the low side, I don't disagree with the reduction. I have more of a problem with the 45 on the Bend Parkway than the 55 between Madras and Redmond.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 20, 2016, 03:17:23 AM
I just drove through there on Friday, and while 55 might be a bit on the low side, I don't disagree with the reduction. I have more of a problem with the 45 on the Bend Parkway than the 55 between Madras and Redmond.
I wholeheartedly agree. 45 on the Bend Parkway is as insane as the 55 on the Legacy Parkway (S.R. 67 freeway) in Utah. Both need at least 10 m.p.h. added to them.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 20, 2016, 12:20:37 AM
An update about the U.S. 97 speed limit reduction between Madras and Terrebonne. The brand new "Speed 55" signs are up. None say "Speed Limit". Interestingly there are 2 "Speed Limit 55" signs on U.S. 97 south bound, one just before the Redmond Bypass and one just south of Redmond before the fairgrounds exit. I am in Redmond for the Demo Derby they had today (I came directly from the one last night in Silverdale Washington by Bremerton) and will be driving south to Bend (and perhaps just a bit further south to check out the speed zone transition south of Bend on U.S. 97) tomorrow morning before heading home to Clackamas.
In my opinion the speed limit on the reduced part of U.S. 97 probably should be 60. (55 is a little slow for a big chunk of it.)
"Brand new"? Wouldn't be surprised if ODOT didn't pull them out of storage somewhere. They probably saved all the signs from before the speed limit increase in case they wanted to do something like this.
Especially given their policy of new signs being "speed limit", I suspect that's exactly what happened: they saved the signs, then pulled them out of storage when they rolled back the limit.
Quote from: vdeane on June 20, 2016, 07:18:13 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 20, 2016, 12:20:37 AM
An update about the U.S. 97 speed limit reduction between Madras and Terrebonne. The brand new "Speed 55" signs are up. None say "Speed Limit". Interestingly there are 2 "Speed Limit 55" signs on U.S. 97 south bound, one just before the Redmond Bypass and one just south of Redmond before the fairgrounds exit. I am in Redmond for the Demo Derby they had today (I came directly from the one last night in Silverdale Washington by Bremerton) and will be driving south to Bend (and perhaps just a bit further south to check out the speed zone transition south of Bend on U.S. 97) tomorrow morning before heading home to Clackamas.
In my opinion the speed limit on the reduced part of U.S. 97 probably should be 60. (55 is a little slow for a big chunk of it.)
"Brand new"? Wouldn't be surprised if ODOT didn't pull them out of storage somewhere. They probably saved all the signs from before the speed limit increase in case they wanted to do something like this.
Especially given their policy of new signs being "speed limit", I suspect that's exactly what happened: they saved the signs, then pulled them out of storage when they rolled back the limit.
While that may be possible, both the signs and posts looked "brand new". Never expect the government to pass up an opportunity to spend more of your hard earned $$$!
Also, at each end of Bend there were "SPEED LIMIT 55" signs posted in the "transition zones" from 65 each way, "SPEED LIMIT 45" signs on the "full freeway" portion of U.S. 97 at the south end of Bend (completely ridiculous) but only "SPEED 45" signs on the Parkway itself.
Interesting that they went the old route. If they're new signs, I suspect it's due to that one quirk in the sign policy with 55 zones. Additionally, they're established as a "temporary" speed zone orders that are supposed to expire on July 1, 2017. Here's SZO J8979 (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=8979), which is the one covering the Terrebonne to Madras stretch of US-97.
Also, on the subject of speed zone orders, doing a search on the ODOT database for Clackamas County just now, it appears there is a placeholder entry now for SZO J8993, for the "Sunrise Expressway Hwy"/"OR 224". It's divided into three sections:
-Lake Road connections with E Portland FWY (I-205)/Clackamas Hwy (OR 224) (MP 4.11) TO 0.17 mile east of the ramp to northbound I-205 (MP 4.53).
-0.17 mile east of the ramp to northbound I-205 (MP 4.53) TO 0.36 mile west of Clackamas Hwy (OR 224) at SE 122nd Avenue (MP 5.91)
-0.36 mile west of Clackamas Hwy (OR 224) at SE 122nd Avenue (MP 5.91) TO Clackamas Hwy (OR 224) at SE 122nd Avenue (MP 6.26)
When new orders are going in like that, there will be an "Image Not Yet Available" message where the PDF link would normally be. From my experience, there's no telling as to when exactly the order will actually be posted. I've seen some go up in a matter of days, and others linger for several months. I suspect it'll be some time after July 4th, though.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 09, 2016, 06:55:14 PM
(On an unrelated note, on Monday morning I saw the first "SPEED LIMIT 55" sign I have seen in Oregon NOT on an Interstate highway. It was located at the east end of Marine Drive in Troutdale. Because I had to continue west on to I-84 I have no idea if there are any more on Marine Drive.)
Relating to the unrelated note, I just saw a "SPEED LIMIT 55" sign on OR99 Southbound between Junction City and Eugene, at Milliron Road, where the new State Hospital was built. Tried to go for a Street View link, but last picture was from 2011, long before the new lights were put up.
It's 50 the whole way, just 35 on the last curve / approaching the signal.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 08:57:15 PM
The sign is about half way around the curve but clearly visible from Ore. 212 and 122nd. There are no "advisory" signs for the curve at all. The "SPEED 35" sign appears to be meant to apply to the entire "expressway".