Which remaing Northeast 65 state is most likely to raise their speed limit.

[tckma]

It is interesting to note that before the 55 MPH national speed limit, the speed limit on the Atlantic City Expressway was 70 MPH.

The AC Expressway really goes through East Bumblefart.  It can easily support 70 if not 75.  Ditto for I-195.  The rest of NJ?  I'm not so sure.  Maybe the northern portions of I-287 where there are miles and miles between exits.

[vdeane]

I would think the majority of the Turnpike could support 75, if not 80.

[cl94]

^^ Per 2012 traffic volumes submitted to the FHWA (latest year where I have a national dataset), here are the 5 least-used segments of the Interstate system:

- I-15 at the Canadian border (just *SLIGHTLY* beats out I-95)
- I-95 in Houlton, ME (I believe it's slightly lower now than in 2012)
- I-15 south of Sunburst, MT
- I-89 at the Canadian border
- I-91 at the Canadian border

Overall, I-15 MT has a longer segment of sub-2000 volumes than I-95 ME does.  I-95 west of US 1/Houlton, ME is close to 5,000 AADT.

All of these are listed as an AADT of 2,100 or less.  The lightest segment of I-180 IL has just over 2,200 AADT.

I-89 will gain some traffic when (and if) Quebec gets it together and finishes A-35.

Being as A-35 keeps making its way south, I fully expect it to be complete in my lifetime. They only need to finish the last 15 km.

As far as sections that were super-2s, I can confirm I-70 in UT through pictures on AARoads and I-95 on Historic Aerials. I certainly wouldn't doubt that I-91 was at one point, just can't find evidence myself. When I did that stretch of I-95 last year, I didn't see a single other vehicle in my direction and I only passed a handful of trucks going the other way. It was without a doubt the loneliest section of freeway I have ever driven.

[froggie]

I certainly wouldn't doubt that I-91 was at one point, just can't find evidence myself.

VTrans maps from the early 1960s plus historic photos in their archive, some of which are online (I believe on some UVM website or somewhere).

[cpzilliacus]

IIRC, that northern stretch of I-95 was originally constructed as a Super-2 freeway.

It was absolutely a Super-2.  I was on it then, around 1969 or 1970.

I think the Super-2 part started north of Bangor, at Old Town (that I am not 100% sure about).

[cpzilliacus]

As was the northern 100 miles or so of I-95 in Maine (though I've heard it widened out to 4 lanes at interchanges).

At least at some of the interchanges it became a conventional 4-lane divided freeway through the interchange, then back to Super-2. 

Took a look at Google, and evidence of most of the merge roadways from 4-land divided to Super-2 are gone, but I found one exception that is pretty obvious. 

North of Sherman, Exit 264, ME-11/ME-158, the grading for the roadway where southbound traffic left the Super-2 approaching that interchange is still visible (the pavement has been removed), and is consistent with my memory here.

I believe the current northbound roadway is the original I-95 Super-2 most of the way.

I do not remember if it remained a Super-2 all the way through any of the interchanges or not. 

[cl94]

Here we go: Exit 227. In this area, the SB side is original. Switched over to the NB side around Exit 244, switched back to SB and stayed there at 276. No idea what it was south of here, as imagery stops a little south of 227. Historic Aerials has imagery all the way up to the border. All interchanges we have stuff for are divided. I think the Super 2 started just north of Exit 199, as 1991 imagery shows a crossover there, but unconfirmed.

[Brandon]

I can one-up that with USGS Topoview.  For some reason the topo maps from 1975 are all aerial photographs.

Sherman area: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/45.8642/-68.4201

You'll have to click on the location, then on the 24K map and click "show" on the 1975 map.

[cl94]

Sweet. That gives us confirmation that the super 2 did indeed begin north of Exit 199, at least originally. Looks like the divided highway was extended north in stages.

[MikeCL]

I can't see in CT in lower Fairfield county they will raise it higher then 55... people already now do 75-80+

[Roadgeekteen]

All northeast states should be 70 and most should have at least some 75.

[Roadsguy]

PA might be able to get away with at least two 80 mph sections, even: the Northeast Extension from Allentown to Plymouth Meeting (75 at least), and the "straightaway" on the mainline Turnpike from Blue Mountain to Gettysburg. Plenty more sections of road could easily be 75, though, although a few of them need some ramp improvements, like I-78 west of Allentown, the Turnpike from Valley Forge to Bensalem, the long, straight parts of I-83, and probably all of I-90.

[Mergingtraffic]

CT hands down 100%.  CT was the last state to raise it's limit to 65 over objections saying "our roads weren't designed for above 55mph" even though there's pics of I-95 having a 60mph limit in the 1970s. 

CT was also one of the last states to allow right turn on red. 

The land of steady habits.

[kphoger]

CT hands down 100%.  CT was the last state to raise it's limit to 65 over objections saying "our roads weren't designed for above 55mph" even though there's pics of I-95 having a 60mph limit in the 1970s. 

CT was also one of the last states to allow right turn on red. 

The land of steady habits.

All of this seems to contradict your answer to the topic question.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT hands down 100%.  CT was the last state to raise it's limit to 65 over objections saying "our roads weren't designed for above 55mph" even though there's pics of I-95 having a 60mph limit in the 1970s. 

CT was also one of the last states to allow right turn on red. 

The land of steady habits.

All of this seems to contradict your answer to the topic question.

CT is the land of steady habits.  Until 20 years ago, we had 40 MPH speed limits on urban interstates.  A perfectly suitable stretch of highway for 65 (I-84 Exit 25A-33) is still signed at 55 MPH 20 years after similar stretches were raised to 65.  We have local state routes signed at 25 MPH in lightly populated areas.  We still have 95% of our highways with sequential exit numbers, and in the 1980's, when we re-signed highways, we went with reflective button copy that was of 1960's vintage.  And we were the almost the last state to allow Sunday liquor sales, and had closing times at our liquor stores of 8PM as of about 10 years ago.  Yet, ironically, we have among the most left-wing progressive politicians representing us. 

[cl94]

Heck, coming across a surface road signed at 50 in CT is like finding a unicorn. If NY would post 55, CT typically posts 45 or less. Granted, few people follow the limits, but if you get stuck behind a person going the speed limit in one of those ridiculous 35-45 zones, it's painful. And 55? CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

[hotdogPi]

CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

The only other states that I could imagine it has any possibility of being true for are RI, DE, NJ, and HI; the first three are the other three states with no rural areas (although there are some areas in all three that aren't urban or suburban, but not rural either), and HI is a bit of a wildcard.

[jeffandnicole]

CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

The only other states that I could imagine it has any possibility of being true for are RI, DE, NJ, and HI; the first three are the other three states with no rural areas (although there are some areas in all three that aren't urban or suburban, but not rural either), and HI is a bit of a wildcard.

NJ & DE have 55 mph at-grade roadways.

(Edited): And they both have rural areas as well.

[cl94]

CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

The only other states that I could imagine it has any possibility of being true for are RI, DE, NJ, and HI; the first three are the other three states with no rural areas (although there are some areas in all three that aren't urban or suburban, but not rural either), and HI is a bit of a wildcard.

Several of NJ's "Jersey freeways" and other divided highways with at-grades are signed at 55, as are DE's divided highways. HI goes up to at least 55. I thought RI had a couple of 55 zones, but I can't find them.

NJ and DE are definitely not entirely urban or suburban. Get to NW or SE NJ sometime and you'll see that it's actually a nice state away from the Turnpike.

[jeffandnicole]

CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

The only other states that I could imagine it has any possibility of being true for are RI, DE, NJ, and HI; the first three are the other three states with no rural areas (although there are some areas in all three that aren't urban or suburban, but not rural either), and HI is a bit of a wildcard.

Several of NJ's "Jersey freeways" and other divided highways with at-grades are signed at 55, as are DE's divided highways. HI goes up to at least 55. I thought RI had a couple of 55 zones, but I can't find them.

NJ and DE are definitely not entirely urban or suburban. Get to NW or SE NJ sometime and you'll see that it's actually a nice state away from the Turnpike.

NJ has a few single-lane 55 mph roads.  This intersection at Routes 72 and 539 is 55 mph all the way around. https://goo.gl/maps/u6zz7VpUBoH2

[shadyjay]

Heck, coming across a surface road signed at 50 in CT is like finding a unicorn. If NY would post 55, CT typically posts 45 or less. Granted, few people follow the limits, but if you get stuck behind a person going the speed limit in one of those ridiculous 35-45 zones, it's painful. And 55? CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

Vermont only allows 55 mph on limited-access highways, elsewhere it's 50 mph.  The portion of US 2 from Danville to St J which is a limited-access highway that has grade intersections is 55 mph, as is US 2 nearing the "islands" on the other side of the state.

[kphoger]

CT hands down 100%.  CT was the last state to raise it's limit to 65 over objections saying "our roads weren't designed for above 55mph" even though there's pics of I-95 having a 60mph limit in the 1970s. 

CT was also one of the last states to allow right turn on red. 

The land of steady habits.

All of this seems to contradict your answer to the topic question.

CT is the land of steady habits.  Until 20 years ago, we had 40 MPH speed limits on urban interstates.  A perfectly suitable stretch of highway for 65 (I-84 Exit 25A-33) is still signed at 55 MPH 20 years after similar stretches were raised to 65.  We have local state routes signed at 25 MPH in lightly populated areas.  We still have 95% of our highways with sequential exit numbers, and in the 1980's, when we re-signed highways, we went with reflective button copy that was of 1960's vintage.  And we were the almost the last state to allow Sunday liquor sales, and had closing times at our liquor stores of 8PM as of about 10 years ago.  Yet, ironically, we have among the most left-wing progressive politicians representing us. 

This is how I'm reading it, though:

Question  –  Which state is most likely to raise its speed limit?
Answer  –  Connecticut, because it rarely raises its speed limits.
Me  –  Say what?

[froggie]

Rhode Island also has rural areas...basically anything beyond about 10 miles west of Providence.  But I'm hard pressed to think of any RI surface roads with a 55 limit.

[roadman65]

Heck, coming across a surface road signed at 50 in CT is like finding a unicorn. If NY would post 55, CT typically posts 45 or less. Granted, few people follow the limits, but if you get stuck behind a person going the speed limit in one of those ridiculous 35-45 zones, it's painful. And 55? CT is the ONLY state that won't post a road with at-grades at 55 (unless there's one I'm missing somewhere) under any circumstances (even though the law allows it).

Vermont only allows 55 mph on limited-access highways, elsewhere it's 50 mph.  The portion of US 2 from Danville to St J which is a limited-access highway that has grade intersections is 55 mph, as is US 2 nearing the "islands" on the other side of the state.

The US 7 Super 2 was 55 when there in 1999.  I am guessing VT allows limited access two lanes to be and other than part of US 7 in Rutland I do not think the state has four lane divided non freeways to post a 55 with at grades.

CT is a strange one as US 7 is mostly 40 on its two lanes where only the freeway parts are 55.  Even MA and NH allow 55 on two lanes with intersections although the latter state US 7 don't enter, but compared to the comment about CT being with low speed limits they could learn from NH.

[cl94]

US 2 might be a super 2 in theory, but it still has at grades (and a ton of them at that) and allows bikes/peds. The section west of I-89 near the islands is a designated bike route. US 2 near St. Johnsbury bans bikes/peds and is considered by the state to be limited access. The key for Vermont allowing 55 on a 2 lane is no driveway access

Other than US 2 around I-91, US 7 south of Rutland is the only 4-lane divided highway in the state of any decent length.