News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Gov. Brown signs Oregon speed limit increase bill

Started by Tarkus, July 23, 2015, 12:11:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tarkus

There's been surprisingly little talk about this, but per both OregonLive's Bill Tracker and the Oregon Legislative Information System, 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.


jakeroot

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.

Tarkus

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.

Ace10

#3
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.

nexus73

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
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Tarkus

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.

Bickendan

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...

corco

#7
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...

J N Winkler

#8
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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Tarkus

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.

corco

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?

myosh_tino

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...
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Bickendan


jakeroot

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.

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

J N Winkler

#16
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 PM
QuoteThen 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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

roadfro

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.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Tarkus

A little update.  According to OregonLive Bill Tracker, 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:

doorknob60

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.

Ace10

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.

Bickendan

I imagine the Portland Metro voters would defeat any ballot measure to raise the limit. Because driving fast is scary.

Tarkus

#22
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.

Thunderbyrd316

#23
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?

roadfro

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.)
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.