Current state speed limit increase proposals

[Pink Jazz]

On its third reading, Washington's increased speed limit bill (HB 2181) passed the House with a 78:19 margin.

Now, for some Washington State House/Senate info...the House is led by Democrats 51 to 47, but the Senate is led by Republicans 25 to 23. These are similar margins, so I would think the bill would pass through the Senate without issue. If that's the case, I'm certain Inslee would pass the bill (though he might ask the House/Senate to amend the bill to increase truck speed limits, since he's big into moving freight through our state faster).

HB 2181's only change is for the RCW to read "75" instead of "70", and opens up the possibility of having 75 along I-5 (perhaps even along I-82 or maybe even US-395).

In fact, I would think Republicans would be more likely in favor of a speed limit increase than Democrats.

[Billy F 1988]

I'm listening to the Montana SB 375 hearing now. The Montana Highway Patrol testified in support of this bill, so I think that's going to help carry the day.

The Montana Truckers actually oppose the bill, even though it raises the speed limit to 70 for trucks (on two lane roads as well as interstates). They feel it risks raising their insurance premiums.

MDT's chief engineer is in favor of the bill, which means the governor is in favor of the bill.

The legislature seemed to be getting hung up on the $250,000 price tag to change the signs.

My gut after listening to the whole thing is that it's not going to pass, but I could be wrong.

That bill should just die already. Montana has far more important things to pass, which aren't being done sadly enough much to my utter chagrin.

[jakeroot]

I'm listening to the Montana SB 375 hearing now. The Montana Highway Patrol testified in support of this bill, so I think that's going to help carry the day.

The Montana Truckers actually oppose the bill, even though it raises the speed limit to 70 for trucks (on two lane roads as well as interstates). They feel it risks raising their insurance premiums.

MDT's chief engineer is in favor of the bill, which means the governor is in favor of the bill.

The legislature seemed to be getting hung up on the $250,000 price tag to change the signs.

My gut after listening to the whole thing is that it's not going to pass, but I could be wrong.

That bill should just die already. Montana has far more important things to pass, which aren't being done sadly enough much to my utter chagrin.

Yeah, because Montana's exorbitant debt can't possibly handle new speed limit signs.

[Billy F 1988]

I'm listening to the Montana SB 375 hearing now. The Montana Highway Patrol testified in support of this bill, so I think that's going to help carry the day.

The Montana Truckers actually oppose the bill, even though it raises the speed limit to 70 for trucks (on two lane roads as well as interstates). They feel it risks raising their insurance premiums.

MDT's chief engineer is in favor of the bill, which means the governor is in favor of the bill.

The legislature seemed to be getting hung up on the $250,000 price tag to change the signs.

My gut after listening to the whole thing is that it's not going to pass, but I could be wrong.

That bill should just die already. Montana has far more important things to pass, which aren't being done sadly enough much to my utter chagrin.

Yeah, because Montana's exorbitant debt can't possibly handle new speed limit signs.

No kidding on that one.

[vdeane]

I'm listening to the Montana SB 375 hearing now. The Montana Highway Patrol testified in support of this bill, so I think that's going to help carry the day.

The Montana Truckers actually oppose the bill, even though it raises the speed limit to 70 for trucks (on two lane roads as well as interstates). They feel it risks raising their insurance premiums.

MDT's chief engineer is in favor of the bill, which means the governor is in favor of the bill.

The legislature seemed to be getting hung up on the $250,000 price tag to change the signs.

My gut after listening to the whole thing is that it's not going to pass, but I could be wrong.

That bill should just die already. Montana has far more important things to pass, which aren't being done sadly enough much to my utter chagrin.

I'm pretty sure government can do more than one thing at a time.

[corco]

I'm listening to the Montana SB 375 hearing now. The Montana Highway Patrol testified in support of this bill, so I think that's going to help carry the day.

The Montana Truckers actually oppose the bill, even though it raises the speed limit to 70 for trucks (on two lane roads as well as interstates). They feel it risks raising their insurance premiums.

MDT's chief engineer is in favor of the bill, which means the governor is in favor of the bill.

The legislature seemed to be getting hung up on the $250,000 price tag to change the signs.

My gut after listening to the whole thing is that it's not going to pass, but I could be wrong.

That bill should just die already. Montana has far more important things to pass, which aren't being done sadly enough much to my utter chagrin.

Yeah, because Montana's exorbitant debt can't possibly handle new speed limit signs.

We're the most fiscally prudent state in the union for a reason!

[SD Mapman]

Aaand now add SD to the list of states considering higher speed limits.
link
This blindsided all of us out here.

[corco]

Aaand now add SD to the list of states considering higher speed limits.
link
This blindsided all of us out here.

South Dakota was my guess for the next state after ID/WY/UT/TX. I hope I get to be right.

[1995hoo]

Doesn't represent a change in overall state law, but it's long overdue: Delaware will finally post a 65-mph limit on I-95 between the Maryland state line (presumably just in the E-ZPass lanes there) and the I-495 split.

[Billy F 1988]

I'm listening to the Montana SB 375 hearing now. The Montana Highway Patrol testified in support of this bill, so I think that's going to help carry the day.

The Montana Truckers actually oppose the bill, even though it raises the speed limit to 70 for trucks (on two lane roads as well as interstates). They feel it risks raising their insurance premiums.

MDT's chief engineer is in favor of the bill, which means the governor is in favor of the bill.

The legislature seemed to be getting hung up on the $250,000 price tag to change the signs.

My gut after listening to the whole thing is that it's not going to pass, but I could be wrong.

That bill should just die already. Montana has far more important things to pass, which aren't being done sadly enough much to my utter chagrin.

I'm pretty sure government can do more than one thing at a time.

What's "more than one thing at a time"? Thumb sucking with their left hand while sticking the right hand in the lower G's?

[corco]

The folks in support of going to 80 in Montana aren't going to let it die.

If SB 375 is tabled for some reason, a new House Bill is being introduced next Friday. HB 603 (PDF) raises the car speed limit to 80 and leaves all other speed limits and fines the same. If 603 passes, voters will vote on the speed limit increase in November.  (apparently house bills for ballot initiatives can be introduced after the transmittal deadline).

As far as parties- speed limit increases really seem to be a non-partisan issue, at least in Montana. Dems and Repubs have both introduced bills to do it, and members of both parties have supported or opposed it.

What's "more than one thing at a time"? Thumb sucking with their left hand while sticking the right hand in the lower G's?

No speed bill has made it out of committee onto the floor yet- they've all been hanging out in highway or transportation committees, where those congressmen are assigned to evaluate bills on those topics. There really aren't too many more pressing highway-related issues. The only other noticeable law revision that may come from these committees is a statewide ban on texting and driving.

[countysigns]

From the Toledo Blade - March 16, 2015 edition...
http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2015/03/16/Ohio-Senate-considers-raising-speed-limit-again.html

Brief synopsis:
"The 75 mph would apply to roads currently set at 70 mph under the terms of the last transportation budget passed in 2013. It would apply to vehicles weighing less than 8,000 pounds when empty.

The revised bill would also prohibit drivers on highways with at least three lanes of traffic from driving in the far left lane unless exiting or passing slower vehicles."

No more cruising along in the "fast" lane?  But that's our favorite Ohio pastime!   

[cl94]

From the Toledo Blade - March 16, 2015 edition...
http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2015/03/16/Ohio-Senate-considers-raising-speed-limit-again.html

Brief synopsis:
"The 75 mph would apply to roads currently set at 70 mph under the terms of the last transportation budget passed in 2013. It would apply to vehicles weighing less than 8,000 pounds when empty.

The revised bill would also prohibit drivers on highways with at least three lanes of traffic from driving in the far left lane unless exiting or passing slower vehicles."

No more cruising along in the "fast" lane?  But that's our favorite Ohio pastime!   

Saw that an hour or so ago. So, would driving in the left lane be allowed if traffic is heavy?

[gonealookin]

The Nevada bill, SB 2, was amended to reduce the maximum allowable speed limit from 85 to 80, in hopes of increasing chances of passage.  The amended bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee on March 17 and now goes to the full Senate for a floor vote.

[corco]

South Dakota will be the next state to hit 80, with the limit increasing in 12 days- as I suspected when we started talking about this last fall, they did it quickly and quietly, adding it as a rider to a gas tax increase bill supported by the governor.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2015/03/17/mph-speed-limit-gas-tax-hike-signed-law/24924491/

[SD Mapman]

South Dakota will be the next state to hit 80, with the limit increasing in 12 days- as I suspected when we started talking about this last fall, they did it quickly and quietly, adding it as a rider to a gas tax increase bill supported by the governor.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2015/03/17/mph-speed-limit-gas-tax-hike-signed-law/24924491/

Signs are going to start going up anytime between now and then, I think.
What I found weird is that unlike the other 80-mph states, SD designated it everywhere the speed limit wasn't 65 (so minus Rapid, Sioux Falls, and N. Sioux City).
Another article from my neck of the plains: Linky

[Pink Jazz]

Signs are going to start going up anytime between now and then, I think.
What I found weird is that unlike the other 80-mph states, SD designated it everywhere the speed limit wasn't 65 (so minus Rapid, Sioux Falls, and N. Sioux City).
Another article from my neck of the plains: Linky

My guess is that they are trying to save money on the costs of performing traffic studies by going with a blanket approach, rather than on a case-by-case basis as with other states.  I'm not sure if this is such a good idea, since not all roads are built the same.

[oscar]

My guess is that they are trying to save money on the costs of performing traffic studies by going with a blanket approach, rather than on a case-by-case basis as with other states.  I'm not sure if this is such a good idea, since not all roads are built the same.

Might be that when whatever studies were done to support increases to 75, it was informally determined that all the 75 zone speed limits could be safely increased above 75 if the law permitted, without need for further studies.  Except perhaps for 75 zones (are there any?) on I-90 through the Black Hills west of the Rapid City area, that seems to me a reasonable guess.

[Henry]

Washington going from 70 to 75 is news to me. Any link? If that's true I think that's awesome.

I was thinking the same thing too!

[corco]

My guess is that they are trying to save money on the costs of performing traffic studies by going with a blanket approach, rather than on a case-by-case basis as with other states.  I'm not sure if this is such a good idea, since not all roads are built the same.

Might be that when whatever studies were done to support increases to 75, it was informally determined that all the 75 zone speed limits could be safely increased above 75 if the law permitted, without need for further studies.  Except perhaps for 75 zones (are there any?) on I-90 through the Black Hills west of the Rapid City area, that seems to me a reasonable guess.

I think South Dakota is like Montana in that the speed limit on rural interstates has a default value, with the ability to commission a speed study to lower it. As that value changes to 80, so do all areas where a speed study has not been conducted.

Most states define a maximum ("speed limit can be up to " as opposed to "speed limit is") and allow the DOT to use their discretion to set a limit below that threshold, which allows more room for the legislature to take a bottom-up approach where highways have to prove they are worthy of the higher speed limit without nuking statute.

[1995hoo]

My guess is that they are trying to save money on the costs of performing traffic studies by going with a blanket approach, rather than on a case-by-case basis as with other states.  I'm not sure if this is such a good idea, since not all roads are built the same.

Might be that when whatever studies were done to support increases to 75, it was informally determined that all the 75 zone speed limits could be safely increased above 75 if the law permitted, without need for further studies.  Except perhaps for 75 zones (are there any?) on I-90 through the Black Hills west of the Rapid City area, that seems to me a reasonable guess.

I think South Dakota is like Montana in that the speed limit on rural interstates has a default value, with the ability to commission a speed study to lower it. As that value changes to 80, so do all areas where a speed study has not been conducted.

....

This appears to be mostly correct based on the statutes:

32-25-1.1.   Maximum daytime speed--Violation as misdemeanor. Except as provided by § 32-25-4 or pursuant to § 32-25-7, no person may drive a vehicle upon a street or highway at a speed in excess of sixty-five miles per hour. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-25-4.   Maximum speeds on interstate highways--Violation as misdemeanor. Except as provided pursuant to § 32-25-7, no person may drive a vehicle upon the national system of interstate highways at a speed in excess of seventy-five [eighty, effective 1 April 2015] miles per hour. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-25-7.   Establishment of speed zones--Posting of zones--State or federal roads--Violation as misdemeanor. The Transportation Commission may establish, by rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 1-26, a maximum speed limit of less than that established by §§ 32-25-1.1 and 32-25-4 upon any highway or portion of highway under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, and any portion of highway under the jurisdiction of a state or federal agency if requested by the agency. The speed limit established by the commission is the maximum speed that any person may drive or operate any vehicle or class of vehicle upon that portion of highway. The Department of Transportation shall conspicuously post signs at the beginning and end of a portion of highway to show the maximum speed limit established by the commission on that portion of highway. A violation of any maximum speed limit established by the commission pursuant to this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

The exception appears to be for certain roads normally limited to 65–they can be posted at 70 following a study:

32-25-7.1.   Establishment of maximum speed limit on any divided four-lane highway in rural areas--Posting of signs--Misdemeanor. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 32-25-1.1, the Transportation Commission may establish, by rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 1-26, a maximum speed limit of seventy miles per hour upon any divided four-lane highway in a rural area on the state trunk highway system. The speed limit established by the commission is the maximum speed that any person may drive or operate any vehicle or class of vehicle upon that portion of highway. The Department of Transportation shall conspicuously post signs at the beginning and end of a portion of highway to show the maximum speed limit established by the commission on that portion of highway. A violation of any maximum speed limit established by the commission pursuant to this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

[SD Mapman]

Might be that when whatever studies were done to support increases to 75, it was informally determined that all the 75 zone speed limits could be safely increased above 75 if the law permitted, without need for further studies.  Except perhaps for 75 zones (are there any?) on I-90 through the Black Hills west of the Rapid City area, that seems to me a reasonable guess.

Yeah there are.

It's going to be kinda weird having the speed limit go DOWN when you enter Wyoming.

[corco]

The Montana Senate Bill is headed to the floor- it passed out of committee on Thursday.

The bill's original intent was to change the daytime speed limits from 75 cars/65 trucks on interstates and 70 cars/60 trucks on other roads to 80/70 and 70/70. Instead, the speed limit will go to 80 cars/65 trucks on interstates and stay at 70/60 on two lane roads, but with a vague provision that allows MDT to raise (or lower) truck speed limits above that threshold if a study is conducted.

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

It doesn't strike me that this bill (either as proposed, or as currently amended) will fix what is broken with Montana speed limit policy from the point of view of motorists like me who want worry-free open-road driving.

As matters now stand, for many two-lane state highways in Montana the figures on the speed limit signs bear little resemblance to a comfortable open-road steady cruising speed, which is a function of the geometric characteristics of the road, ordinary drivers' tolerance for sideways force, and a desire to hold a fixed speed versus speeding up on straightaways and slowing down for an awkward succession of sharp curves.

It is admittedly not the function of speed limit signs to signal such a speed, but by default they are the only such signal available, since each curve (whether it has an advisory speed or not) is indicative of characteristics only at a single point, not along the corridor as a whole.

The situation is not too bad on important thoroughfares like US 93 that have received considerable investment and engineering attention in the recent past.  However, I have had difficult experiences trying to choose comfortable cruising speeds on roads like SR 78 (Red Lodge to Columbus) and SSR 308 (Belfry to Red Lodge).  It has been more than ten years since I did it, but I still remember crawling past multiple speed limit 70 signs on SR 78 with the cruise control set to 45 because I was tired of being surprised by curves hidden by hills.  (And before you ask, yes, I did turn out when I could, which was a challenge because there were no shoulders.)

I would be quite happy if Montana returned to a policy of derestriction but posted "suggested speed" signs for defined highway segments, each segment consisting of contiguous lengths of road that are recognizably "of a piece" with regard to topography, alignment, etc.  This would be in addition to the usual curve signing with advisory speeds where posted when necessary.

In principle Montana could adopt the same speed zoning policies that are used in other mountain states like Colorado and Wyoming, but this would be more resource-intensive and I don't think it would go over well with natives who are accustomed to the present de facto derestriction.  The present debate over 75 versus 80 on white-background signs is arid--on rural mountain freeways like I-15 between Helena and Great Falls, for example, I can't imagine it mattering to anyone unless he or she had a high-performance car with grippy tires and had plenty of skidpan experience.

[vdeane]

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.