Current state speed limit increase proposals

[corco]

I'm actually not too big a fan of this- MDT's powers to change speed limits at will would expand greatly under this bill, and it makes me worried that the highway patrol's objective to have 65 car/65 truck speed limits on all two lane roads is a little bit closer to fruition. The highway patrol actually supports this bill despite the speed limit increase to 80- there's a reason for that.

And to think that I thought that that was because they were like Michigan and weren't beholden to the "safety" lobby.  I guess I was wrong on that.

I don't think they are- there is some logic to the idea that 65/65 is a safer driving speed on two lane roads than 70/60, since it would in theory minimize passing. The downside is that it makes passing more difficult. Personally, I'd prefer to keep it the way it is, since traffic volumes aren't all that high on the vast majority of Montana's two lane roads, and it is easier to pass a truck going 60 than a truck going 65.

As Winkler mentioned above, there are many, many areas in the state where the posted speed limit is a de facto non-speed limit, since it's definitely neither reasonable nor prudent nor possible given the current laws of physics to drive at the posted speed limit. That said, there are a lot of areas in the state where 80+ would probably be safe on two-lane roads. Montana 200 from Great Falls to Sidney, US 12 east of White Sulphur, substantial portions of US 2, Montana 3 north of Billings, Montana 13, and most of those other central state highways come to mind.

The highway patrol's comment on going to 80 on interstates was basically "we don't like it, but it's inevitable, so we're not going to fight it."

[Buck87]

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/03/75_mph_speed_limit_proposal_to.html

Ohio's bid for 75 mph has been shelved

[Pink Jazz]

Looks like the Montana Senate has advanced a modified version of the bill:
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/03/25/senate-advances-80-mph-highway-speed-limit-proposal/

Rather than a blanket increase of all 75 mph zones to 80 mph, only certain sections of highway will be increased to 80 mph wherever MDT deems that such speed limit is safe.

[corco]

Looks like the Montana Senate has advanced a modified version of the bill:
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/03/25/senate-advances-80-mph-highway-speed-limit-proposal/

Rather than a blanket increase of all 75 mph zones to 80 mph, only certain sections of highway will be increased to 80 mph wherever MDT deems that such speed limit is safe.

*wherever the bill drafter deems it is safe. The article is wrong- the speed limit automatically goes up to 80 on all interstate highways except a codified list of segments that are included in the bill. Even then, MDT will still have to do the engineering studies to justify lowering those speed limits from 80, it just gives them an interim-type approval to not raise the speed limit to 80 automatically in those areas.

[gonealookin]

Nevada Senate Bill 2 (80 mph) passed the Senate floor today by a 16-4-1 vote.

By party it broke down as:
GOP:  11 Yea, 0 Nay.
Dem:  5 Yea, 4 Nay, 1 Excused.

The bill now goes to the Assembly, where an 85 mph bill died in 2013.  The deadline for Assembly passage is May 22.  For what it's worth:  In 2013, Democrats held a 27-15 advantage in the Assembly.  In 2015, Republicans have a 25-17 advantage.

[jwags]

It looks like Wisconsin's proposal is moving right along.

Chicago Tribune

[cl94]

And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here 

[Pete from Boston]

And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here 

"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

[Zeffy]

And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here 

"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

I think some parts of Upstate New York could go for at least 70. Same with some parts of New Jersey. Really, I'm not sure how we still have 65 on our freeways when practically everyone goes at least 10 over (if not faster).

[cl94]

And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here 

"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

I think some parts of Upstate New York could go for at least 70. Same with some parts of New Jersey. Really, I'm not sure how we still have 65 on our freeways when practically everyone goes at least 10 over (if not faster).

Agree. In New York (mainly outside of the Buffalo area), the 85th percentile speed is typically at/above 75. Just about everything in New York that's currently 65 could be 70 and most of that could even be 75. Jersey is the same way. Massachusetts could have 70-75 on the Pike west of 128 and most of I-91 north of Springfield. Vermont could easily do 70 on almost everything.

Remember that, once upon a time, New York was 70. Downstate speed limits could also see a hike from 55 to 60-65+. Not like anybody really goes 55. Kind of silly to have the LIE and Sunrise Highway at 55 if everyone is going 80+ in the right lane.

The only states in the northeast where 65 might suffice are Connecticut and Rhode Island, both due to urbanization and low design standards, yet I-395 might be a candidate for 70.

[vdeane]

I'd like to see NY go 70 for most of the areas that are 65, with 75 on parts of the Thruway and Northway.  VT could do 70 as well, as could I-89 in NH.  I'd also raise MA and NJ to 70 (with the NJ Turnpike at 75).  DE 1 may or may not be a good candidate for 70 as well.  CT and RI can probably stay 65.

[jakeroot]

Washington State's increase to 75 MPH passed the senate 41 to 7. Unless I'm mistaken, since both the house and senate passed the bill, it now goes to the Governor for his signature.

[PHLBOS]

"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

Not to get political here but in at least three of those Northeast states (MA, NY & PA); the speed limit increase to 65 (on rural Interstates) only occurred after there was a change in governors (&, coincidentally, political parties).

MA: Dukakis to Weld circa 1991
NY: Mario Cuomo to Pataki circa 1995
PA: Casey, Sr. to Ridge circa 1995

Note: above-listed years are when the successor governors were actually sworn into office.

In NJ, it wasn't until NJ 101.5 FM went on an all-out assault with the issue and prompted listeners to flood the State Legislatures and then-Gov. Whitman's offices with calls/letters/e-mails regarding such.

[MASTERNC]

Looks like Maryland's 70 MPH bill just made it out of committee favorably in the House.  There were two different versions of the same bill (a Senate and a House version), so the House took up the Senate's version.  Just needs a House vote and the Governor's signature.

[Pink Jazz]

Looks like South Dakota is now actually considering lowering some stretches of highways back to 75 mph due to some safety concerns:
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/not-so-fast-transportation-officials-checking-south-dakota-s-mph/article_b1c61b0b-c756-57c5-b051-9ae49f5302f1.html

That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

[1995hoo]

"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

Not to get political here but in at least three of those Northeast states (MA, NY & PA); the speed limit increase to 65 (on rural Interstates) only occurred after there was a change in governors (&, coincidentally, political parties).

MA: Dukakis to Weld circa 1991
NY: Mario Cuomo to Pataki circa 1995
PA: Casey, Sr. to Ridge circa 1995

Note: above-listed years are when the successor governors were actually sworn into office.

In NJ, it wasn't until NJ 101.5 FM went on an all-out assault with the issue and prompted listeners to flood the State Legislatures and then-Gov. Whitman's offices with calls/letters/e-mails regarding such.

Don't forget the NMSL repeal came about only after both houses of Congress changed hands in 1994 (well, after the 1994 election).

[MASTERNC]

Think I'm reading this right, but the Maryland House apparently passed the Senate's 70 MPH bill (only 8 of 137 voting against it).  Let's see if the Governor signs.

[jakeroot]

That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

You could argue both sides. I like blanket speed limits because you always know what to expect..."Welcome to South Dakota: Speed Limit 80" and done! No more fuss. Not to mention, when you leave speed limit increases up to, say, a DOT, they aren't necessarily obliged to raise the limit, so sometimes the only surefire way of increasing a limit is by mandating a blanket increase. Oregon is a great example. The DOT can raise the limit to 70, but they refuse due to safety concerns (a load of bollocks, obviously).

[corco]

Looks like South Dakota is now actually considering lowering some stretches of highways back to 75 mph due to some safety concerns:
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/not-so-fast-transportation-officials-checking-south-dakota-s-mph/article_b1c61b0b-c756-57c5-b051-9ae49f5302f1.html

That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

There's nothing wrong with that - 80 until proven otherwise is more fair and equitable than having to justify what should be 80.

[TEG24601]

Washington State's increase to 75 MPH passed the senate 41 to 7. Unless I'm mistaken, since both the house and senate passed the bill, it now goes to the Governor for his signature.

Thank the maker!  Now to allot some money to fixing the state routes, and perhaps an I-90 bypass of Vantage (to save fuel, and get rid of that 90° curve), not to mention the ferry fleet issues.

[nexus73]

That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

You could argue both sides. I like blanket speed limits because you always know what to expect..."Welcome to South Dakota: Speed Limit 80" and done! No more fuss. Not to mention, when you leave speed limit increases up to, say, a DOT, they aren't necessarily obliged to raise the limit, so sometimes the only surefire way of increasing a limit is by mandating a blanket increase. Oregon is a great example. The DOT can raise the limit to 70, but they refuse due to safety concerns (a load of bollocks, obviously).

Being from Oregon I would use a much stronger word than bollocks...LOL!  We are the slowest state in the West for speed limits.  California has 25 MPH school zones, Oregon has 20 MPH ones.  Is there a massive amount of carnage in California as a result?  Nope.  Washington and California have higher speed limits than our 55 on non-Interstate roads and seem to do just fine.  The Interstates with their split speed limits are way behind the two neighboring Pacific Ocean states too. 

ODOT is a very unresponsive bureaucracy, given to wasting lots of time doing nothing unless severely kicked in the shins.  If you want a well-paid sinecure with high retirement pay, it's great work if you can get it but if you want an agency that gets out there to make things happen, fuggedaboudit.  When I compare what UDOT (Utah) does to ODOT, it is like a difference of night and day in regards to speed limits and improving roads.  It was not always so as Oregon was the first state to complete it's section of I-5 in 1965 and I saw many upgrades to US 101 take place through the Seventies.  Then it is like someone pulled the plug and ODOT went moribund.

Rick

[TEG24601]

That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

You could argue both sides. I like blanket speed limits because you always know what to expect..."Welcome to South Dakota: Speed Limit 80" and done! No more fuss. Not to mention, when you leave speed limit increases up to, say, a DOT, they aren't necessarily obliged to raise the limit, so sometimes the only surefire way of increasing a limit is by mandating a blanket increase. Oregon is a great example. The DOT can raise the limit to 70, but they refuse due to safety concerns (a load of bollocks, obviously).

Being from Oregon I would use a much stronger word than bollocks...LOL!  We are the slowest state in the West for speed limits.  California has 25 MPH school zones, Oregon has 20 MPH ones.  Is there a massive amount of carnage in California as a result?  Nope.  Washington and California have higher speed limits than our 55 on non-Interstate roads and seem to do just fine.  The Interstates with their split speed limits are way behind the two neighboring Pacific Ocean states too. 

ODOT is a very unresponsive bureaucracy, given to wasting lots of time doing nothing unless severely kicked in the shins.  If you want a well-paid sinecure with high retirement pay, it's great work if you can get it but if you want an agency that gets out there to make things happen, fuggedaboudit.  When I compare what UDOT (Utah) does to ODOT, it is like a difference of night and day in regards to speed limits and improving roads.  It was not always so as Oregon was the first state to complete it's section of I-5 in 1965 and I saw many upgrades to US 101 take place through the Seventies.  Then it is like someone pulled the plug and ODOT went moribund.

Rick

That is because all the Freeway monies got funneled into Tri-Met, and the rest of the state is being ignored.  I just drove from Pasco to Portland, and I-84 was even worse than I remembered, all the way until the new Bridge into Troutdale, then I went through my first Contraflow in Oregon or Washington.  However, WSDOT isn't much better, the difference is that when the Legislature makes a change and it is signed into law, WSDOT tries to make it work.  In Oregon, ODOT just raises its middle finger, otherwise, the increased speed legislation that was passed in 02 or 03 would have taken effect, and there would be 70 MPH speed limits posted.


And don't get me started on the Oregon Highway vs Oregon Route stupidity... it is almost as bad at the OLCC.

[jakeroot]

However, WSDOT isn't much better

You seem to have sort of randomly switched topics mid-paragraph, but as far as infrastructure projects go, WSDOT is miles ahead of ODOT. In fact, WSDOT-spending on highway projects went up 183% between '03 and '13 (+$4.2B), which was more than any other state.

[nexus73]

However, WSDOT isn't much better

You seem to have sort of randomly switched topics mid-paragraph, but as far as infrastructure projects go, WSDOT is miles ahead of ODOT. In fact, WSDOT-spending on highway projects went up 183% between '03 and '13 (+$4.2B), which was more than any other state.

WSDOT is also moving toward a minimum 6-lanes for I-5 from Vancouver WA to Seattle.  Only about 25 miles remain to be improved AFAIK.  ODOT's last I-5 lane addition was a few miles in Salem, finished in the last decade and that's it for the whole state concerning added freeway capacity.  The new bridges over the McKenzie and Willamette are made for 6 lanes but ODOT has no plan to even think about what happens in the Eugene-Springfield area, Oregon's 2nd largest urban area, until the 2030's.  To 6-lane the few miles there would be easy as pie but is ODOT up to the task?  Of course not. 

Then look at the mess that is Medford.  Obsolete 4-lane viaduct from half a century ago with a daily traffic count close to 100K and only 2 Medford exits.  That whole structure is coming down hard when the Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits.  Yet ODOT poured a bunch of money into interchange improvements that did not seem to be needed over there.  SR-62 should have been turned into I-905 since it's traffic count is even higher than I-5's but all we got was some ordinary expressway.  At least it should have been superboulevarded.

Don't get me started on the Bend "Parkway", which is the worst designed excuse for a freeway in the state.

Rick 

[PHLBOS]

Don't forget the NMSL repeal came about only after both houses of Congress changed hands in 1994 (well, after the 1994 election).

Well aware of such. 

The point of my original post (which was in response to Pete From Boston's comment regarding northeastern states dragging their feet on the issue) was that even when the Feds marginally lifted the restrictions; the governors of many of those northeastern states at the time still wouldn't budge on the matter.  Heck, PA (under Bob Casey, Sr.) went as far as to erect signs at every expressway/turnpike at the borders that read: PENNSYLVANIA'S MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT STILL 55 MPH (the word STILL was boxed in yellow).  Needless to say, those signs were taken down once PA started adopting 65 mph speed limits in 1995.

Post remnants of above-sign along I-95 northbound just north of PA 452/Exit 2