If I understand correctly, the law authorizing 70 MPH speed limits in Maryland allows the SHA to begin signing 70-MPH speed limits starting in October. Has the SHA started any studies or undertaken any planning to actually start signing 70-MPH speed limits when the law permits them to?
I haven't heard anything at all about it. I don't even recall the local media reporting when the governor signed the bill authorizing 70-mph limits.
Quote from: mcmc on August 19, 2015, 03:31:26 PM
If I understand correctly, the law authorizing 70 MPH speed limits in Baltimore allows the SHA to begin signing 70-MPH speed limits starting in October. Has the SHA started any studies or undertaken any planning to actually start signing 70-MPH speed limits when the law permits them to?
Not aware of any studies by SHA or by MdTA (I believe MdTA would need to study its own roads by its own engineering staff).
I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:
(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83 (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is
universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)
I would add in:
US 340 - MM 3 - MM 12
US 13 / 50 bypass of Salisbury
I-97 - whole length
I-68 - WV Line to Exit 40, Exit 45 to Exit 82
I-895 - MM 5.5 to I-95 (south end)
I-81 - I-70 to WV line
Quote
I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:
(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83 (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2015, 11:53:26 PM
Quote from: mcmc on August 19, 2015, 03:31:26 PM
If I understand correctly, the law authorizing 70 MPH speed limits in Baltimore allows the SHA to begin signing 70-MPH speed limits starting in October. Has the SHA started any studies or undertaken any planning to actually start signing 70-MPH speed limits when the law permits them to?
Not aware of any studies by SHA or by MdTA (I believe MdTA would need to study its own roads by its own engineering staff).
I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:
(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83 (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)
I suspect that I-70 west of Exit 82 (Where it becomes 3 lanes where US 40 splits off) all the way to the PA state line could become 70 mph. Right now it is 65 that whole way.
As far as I-270 south of Clarksburg - I don't see that happening. They aren't going to jump a section that they have not even allowed 65 on to go to 70 (Although yes I agree that 70 is closer to the speed along there when it isn't 30 due to traffic)
I would add US 340 west of Frederick up til Knoxville (where it narrows for the bridge approach) which is now 65
I just sent a question to Dr. Gridlock at the Washington Post to ask whether he's heard anything. He usually responds within a few hours, so I'll follow up sometime after 2:00 unless he replies before noon.
I agree with "bsmart" that it seems extremely unlikely they'd post 70-mph limits on I-270. It's the usual weird scenario that the part of the road that's wider and better has the lower speed limit due to a perception that "congestion" makes a higher limit "unsafe," and I certainly think if the current limit is not 65 they won't even consider the idea of raising it. I've long thought Maryland ought to consider split speed limits on the quad-carraigeway portion of I-270, though–55 mph in the "local" lanes due to the two-lane design and the frequent merges and diverges on both the left and right, and 65 or 70 mph in the "express" lanes due to there being more lanes and the only exits or entrances being via slip ramps to and from the "local" lanes.
I have long thought US-15 from some point north of the Frederick area up to the Pennsylvania state line could be posted at 60 or 65, but I suspect Maryland law may prohibit anything above 55 on a road with at-grade intersections. I have not looked up the statutes to verify this. Even if Maryland law allowed 70 on there, I don't think it would be a good option due in part to the somewhat hillier and twistier section near Thurmont.
I highly doubt I-895 will receive any 70-mph speed limits. It's still 55 now, isn't it? Been a few years since I've used the old tunnel.
My read on the Maryland statutes (Section 21—801.1, BTW) is it allows non-Interstate freeways to be raised up to 70 MPH just like the Interstates can, subject to an "engineering and traffic investigation" as provided in Section 21-802. So the freeway part of 15 through Frederick could theoretically go to 70 MPH if a study recommended it, but farther north where the at-grade intersections are could go no higher than 55 per state law.
On a somewhat related note, Maryland state law defines an "expressway" as what most of us call a freeway.
Quote from: mattpedersen on August 20, 2015, 01:46:32 AM
I would add in:
US 340 - MM 3 - MM 12
US 13 / 50 bypass of Salisbury
I-97 - whole length
I-68 - WV Line to Exit 40, Exit 45 to Exit 82
I-895 - MM 5.5 to I-95 (south end)
I-81 - I-70 to WV line
Quote
I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:
(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83 (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)
I-795 (at least north of Owings Mills) should be doable as well. Ditto on MD 100 and the ICC/I-370.
Quote from: froggie on August 20, 2015, 11:34:29 AM
My read on the Maryland statutes (Section 21—801.1, BTW) is it allows non-Interstate freeways to be raised up to 70 MPH just like the Interstates can, subject to an "engineering and traffic investigation" as provided in Section 21-802. So the freeway part of 15 through Frederick could theoretically go to 70 MPH if a study recommended it, but farther north where the at-grade intersections are could go no higher than 55 per state law.
On a somewhat related note, Maryland state law defines an "expressway" as what most of us call a freeway.
Interesting, thanks. I don't think 70 mph is an appropriate speed limit through Frederick, especially not with that new interchange project set to begin north of town. I wonder whether, if it didn't have the provision you mention regarding non-Interstates, it would have been reason to consider posting I-595 to allow for the higher speed limit on there, or whether the "secret" number would have been considered sufficient. Obviously that's now more of a hypothetical question. I just find it interesting.
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2015, 11:36:11 AM
....
I-795 (at least north of Owings Mills) should be doable as well. Ditto on MD 100 and the ICC/I-370.
They won't post 70 on either the ICC or I-370. There was enough kicking and screaming about whether to post 60 mph on the ICC. I also suspect they would determine that the curves on the segment west of the tunnel are too sharp for trucks to have a 70-mph limit.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 11:11:32 AM
I just sent a question to Dr. Gridlock at the Washington Post to ask whether he's heard anything. He usually responds within a few hours, so I'll follow up sometime after 2:00 unless he replies before noon.
....
He replied that no decisions have been made yet.
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 10:01:47 AM
As far as I-270 south of Clarksburg - I don't see that happening. They aren't going to jump a section that they have not even allowed 65 on to go to 70 (Although yes I agree that 70 is closer to the speed along there when it isn't 30 due to traffic)
I think the design speed for I-270 from the "split" north to Md. 121 is 70 MPH or higher.
Curiously, the
only part of I-270 in Montgomery County that has a posted 65 MPH limit is north of Md. 121 (Clarksburg, Exit 18), which is the part of the freeway that remains mostly unmodified from its pre-Interstate design. That's a relic of the days when the posted limit could only be above 55 MPH was in rural areas.
But I get the impression that the 85th percentile speed on 270 is greater than 65, and maybe greater than 70 (and it is mostly unenforced). Certainly the "Express" lanes (the main roadway) could be posted at least 65 MPH.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 11:11:32 AM
I highly doubt I-895 will receive any 70-mph speed limits. It's still 55 now, isn't it? Been a few years since I've used the old tunnel.
I-895 is now posted 65 MPH south of its partial interchange with Md. 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway). In spite of its old design (and a very sharp exit ramp from the southbound side to the Inner Loop of I-695), it works out O.K., perhaps because traffic volumes are so low.
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
US 11 north of Hagerstown to the PA State Line
I-70 between MM 37 and MM 35
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
No way beyond the split from US 340. It is undivided road and has a history of head on collisions
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
US 11 north of Hagerstown to the PA State Line
I-70 between MM 37 and MM 35
They wouldn't post a 70 mph limit for just 2 or 3 miles.
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
No way beyond the split from US 340. It is undivided road and has a history of head on collisions
Plus a roundabout. I have a friend whose father and
two siblings brother were killed on that road, so I'm somewhat biased, but I cannot imagine them raising the speed limit on Route 15.
(Edited because I had the facts wrong–her father and brother died in the crash, but neither of her sisters were in the car. The person who caused the crash, and was at fault, was driving a Cadillac Escalade at 108 mph and swerving in and out of traffic. She was also killed. It was two days after Christmas, too.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
No way beyond the split from US 340. It is undivided road and has a history of head on collisions
Plus a roundabout. I have a friend whose father and two siblings were killed on that road, so I'm somewhat biased, but I cannot imagine them raising the speed limit on Route 15.
I think ethanman has a better chance of getting VA 28 to be 85 ;-). Besides US 15 has to have a minimum of 15K AADT south of the US 340 split anyway so its definitely not feasible. Idk if it is even 55 north of Point of Rocks since VA has lowered it to 45 north of Leesburg.
UPDATE: After finally driving the entire section of US 15 in MD, I can confirm that it is 55 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2767361,-77.5404,3a,75y,46.19h,82.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGDayB6eLbTV6AAJ3TiMr4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from MD 28 in Point of Rocks to US 340.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 09:36:48 PM
Plus a roundabout. I have a friend whose father and two siblings were killed on that road, so I'm somewhat biased, but I cannot imagine them raising the speed limit on Route 15.
Not going to happen.
That road would need to be converted to a four lane divided (which would not match up well with the bridge over the Potomac River at Point of Rocks and along U.S. 15 in Loudoun County, Va.).
The land is there (and in state ownership) for a four lane divided highway, but I do not think the state is the least bit interested in widening it, because: it would have to include an all new bridge over the Potomac (not cheap);
and the replacement of the roundabouts (as stated above) with grade-separated interchanges;
and replacement of three at-grade intersections with overpasses without access or diamond interchanges;
and agreement by Virginia to widen their part of U.S. 15 at least to Leesburg.
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 10:01:47 AM
I suspect that I-70 west of Exit 82 (Where it becomes 3 lanes where US 40 splits off) all the way to the PA state line could become 70 mph. Right now it is 65 that whole way.
I am not so enthused about raising the speed limit on I-70 between Md. 66 (Boonsboro, Exit 35) and the half-interchange at U.S. 40 Alternate (Braddock Heights, Exit 49).
The grades there are (by Maryland standards) pretty long and steep, and the eastbound side descents (
especially between the crest of the Blue Ridge [South Mountain], the rest area and down to Md. 17 (Myersville, Exit 42)) should probably not have a limit higher than 65.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
US 11 north of Hagerstown to the PA State Line
That section of U.S. 11 is effectively a
residential street most of the way (except where the road ducks under the runways at Hagerstown Airport),
and two lanes undivided.
Not likely that a traffic engineer would agree to a 70 MPH limit on such a road.
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
Quote from: cpzilliacusThe land is there (and in state ownership) for a four lane divided highway, but I do not think the state is the least bit interested in widening it, because: it would have to include an all new bridge over the Potomac (not cheap); and the replacement of the roundabouts (as stated above) with grade-separated interchanges; and replacement of three at-grade intersections with overpasses without access or diamond interchanges; and agreement by Virginia to widen their part of U.S. 15 at least to Leesburg.
- The land is there for the most part, but not all the way to the river...they're a few parcels short at MD 28.
- Widening 15 would not require replacing the roundabouts/intersections with interchanges. Expanding them, yes, but not replacing them. The interchanges would only be needed if the desire is for a speed limit higher than 55.
- Depending on the condition of the existing Point of Rocks Bridge, a parallel bridge could carry 2 lanes with the existing bridge carrying the other two lanes. That would cut the cost down vice a new 4-lane bridge
- Except for the river bridge approach, there is no need for Maryland to have an agreement with Virginia in order to widen Maryland's section. Would it create a bottleneck? Sure...but no different than the bottleneck that already exists. In my experience, the issues along 15 between the Potomac and 340 are more safety-driven than capacity-driven (pun intended).
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
Wasn't it Maryland who posted those idiotic
STILL! banners over their 55 mph speed limit signs?
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2015, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
Wasn't it Maryland who posted those idiotic STILL! banners over their 55 mph speed limit signs?
Yes, indeed. The ones I always found particularly absurd were on the Beltway in Montgomery County just after you crossed in from Virginia. Those "STILL!" banners were there during the Schaefer years, i.e., before Maryland had any 65-mph limits
anywhere and before the repeal of the NMSL. This made the banners on the Beltway doubly stupid because even if Maryland law had permitted 65-mph speed limits at that time, no such limit would have been posted on the Beltway due to the NMSL prohibiting such in "urban areas." (Of course, nowadays the only 65-mph limit on the Beltway is in Virginia, but that's a separate issue because Maryland
could post whatever they wish.)
So the "STILL!" on the Beltway was meaningless unless you interpreted the "Speed Limit 55" sign as being like those weird New York "State Speed Limit 55" signs, i.e. "55 unless otherwise posted." I know I don't interpret speed limit signs that way, including the Maryland signs I'm discussing–I interpret them as meaning "Speed Limit XX on this road, in this location and continuing until you see a sign prescribing a different limit." (Unless, of course, a sign says something like "city-wide speed limit XX unless otherwise posted," but that's not what these signs said.)
Regarding froggie's comments, I think cpzilliacus was addressing noelbotevera's suggestion that Route 15 could be posted at 70 mph and listing what would have to occur before Maryland authorities would even consider the change. Replacing the roundabout would indeed be necessary under current Maryland law in that scenario (as froggie noted, of course). I think cpzilliacus was agreeing with my comment that they're not going to raise the speed limit on that segment and that his comment about widening the road was made in that context, not as a general comment on widening it.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusThe land is there (and in state ownership) for a four lane divided highway, but I do not think the state is the least bit interested in widening it, because: it would have to include an all new bridge over the Potomac (not cheap); and the replacement of the roundabouts (as stated above) with grade-separated interchanges; and replacement of three at-grade intersections with overpasses without access or diamond interchanges; and agreement by Virginia to widen their part of U.S. 15 at least to Leesburg.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- The land is there for the most part, but not all the way to the river...they're a few parcels short at MD 28.
I have not checked the parcel maps, but I do recall when that section of U.S. 15 was built in the late 1960's (replaced an older routing via present-day Md. 85 and Md. 28), and I remember fences and the like that were built all along there, which would seem to be wide enough for four lanes.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- Widening 15 would not require replacing the roundabouts/intersections with interchanges. Expanding them, yes, but not replacing them. The interchanges would only be needed if the desire is for a speed limit higher than 55.
I was responding to the idea that this part of U.S. 15 could be posted 70 MPH (IMO clearly unreasonable to raise the limit unless all of that is done).
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- Depending on the condition of the existing Point of Rocks Bridge, a parallel bridge could carry 2 lanes with the existing bridge carrying the other two lanes. That would cut the cost down vice a new 4-lane bridge
Agreed. Though based on what I saw during the floods of winter 1996, the existing bridge may be too low for
extreme events of that kind (it was very nearly swept-away then, though admittedly it did survive Hurricane Agnes).
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- Except for the river bridge approach, there is no need for Maryland to have an agreement with Virginia in order to widen Maryland's section. Would it create a bottleneck? Sure...but no different than the bottleneck that already exists. In my experience, the issues along 15 between the Potomac and 340 are more safety-driven than capacity-driven (pun intended).
I get back to the suggestion to raise the limit to 70 MPH. To have a 70 MPH freeway come to an abrupt end at the Virginia end of the bridge seems pretty unwise - though I doubt that Loudoun County wants to upgrade U.S. 15 from the river to Leesburg to a freeway or even an expressway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 09:02:01 AM
Regarding froggie's comments, I think cpzilliacus was addressing noelbotevera's suggestion that Route 15 could be posted at 70 mph and listing what would have to occur before Maryland authorities would even consider the change. Replacing the roundabout would indeed be necessary under current Maryland law in that scenario (as froggie noted, of course). I think cpzilliacus was agreeing with my comment that they're not going to raise the speed limit on that segment and that his comment about widening the road was made in that context, not as a general comment on widening it.
Correct on all points.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
There was plenty of intransigence on the part of certain members of the General Assembly as well.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
There was plenty of intransigence on the part of certain members of the General Assembly as well.
You would definitely know better than I would, especially as during the 1991—95 period I spent most of my time in Charlottesville (or Durham in the second half of 1995). I focused on the former governor because I seemed to recall he essentially told the General Assembly that it didn't matter what they did because he would veto any 65-mph bill and, if they overrode his veto, he'd ensure the people in charge at the SHA were people who would not raise any speed limits (essentially making said agency like Oregon's, I guess). My memory is probably not 100% accurate on all the details, but I remember Schaefer being particularly adamant as to this issue, and I also remember how 65-mph limits came very quickly once Parris Glendening took over–from what I recall, Maryland posted 65 shortly before New York did, and both of them were among the last states to do it prior to the NMSL repeal in the fall of 1995.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2015, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
Wasn't it Maryland who posted those idiotic STILL! banners over their 55 mph speed limit signs?
From mid-1987 to late 1995, PA used to post large signs along freeways, shortly inside the state borders that read
PENNSYVANIA MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT STILL 55 MPH. Bob Casey, Sr., who served as governor of the Keystone State from 1987-1994, was opposed to increasing PA's speed limit.
Once PA finally got on board the 65 (initially for rural Interstates) bandwagon (thanks to then-Gov. Tom Ridge); those signs were immediately taken down. Post remnants of the now-long-gone sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8353761,-75.4204705,3a,75y,103.75h,74.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHQtEq3TNcwCxHh-iAVUHow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) along I-95 northbound in Delaware County, PA.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2015, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
Wasn't it Maryland who posted those idiotic STILL! banners over their 55 mph speed limit signs?
From mid-1987 to late 1995, PA used to post large signs along freeways, shortly inside the state borders that read PENNSYVANIA MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT STILL 55 MPH. Bob Casey, Sr., who served as governor of the Keystone State from 1987-1994, was opposed to increasing PA's speed limit.
Once PA finally got on board the 65 (initially for rural Interstates) bandwagon (thanks to then-Gov. Tom Ridge); those signs were immediately taken down. Post remnants of the now-long-gone sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8353761,-75.4204705,3a,75y,103.75h,74.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHQtEq3TNcwCxHh-iAVUHow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) along I-95 northbound in Delaware County, PA.
To me that sign would be far less obnoxious than the Maryland one I mentioned precisely because of the way it's worded–it clearly makes the motorist aware that this is a statewide law. The Maryland signs Rothman and I were discussing were simply small black-on-yellow auxiliary signs located above standard speed limit signs, and all the auxiliary signs said was "STILL!" I can't find a picture online to post here.
(This is not to say I didn't find Pennsylvania's speed limit laws obnoxious, of course–just that I think the sign you mention would come across as a less of a middle-finger gesture.)
NJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65, but they never posted such annoying signage prior to that point. Unfortunately, when they went to 65, they did post large 'FINES DOUBLED - SPEEDING AND OTHER VIOLATIONS' signs after every 65 mph sign. Lately though, I've noticed if one of those signs is removed (accidently or purposely), it's generally not replaced.
I remember when Delaware posted 'Strictly Enforced' under all their 65 mph signs on DE 1. They've all since been removed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2015, 09:55:33 AMNJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65
I believe CT holds that
claim to fame.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2015, 09:55:33 AMNJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65
I believe CT holds that claim to fame.
And still, Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has speed limits greater than 55 mph (up to 65 mph on the tolled Autopistas). However, I believe Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has freeway standard roads.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 21, 2015, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2015, 09:55:33 AMNJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65
I believe CT holds that claim to fame.
And still, Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has speed limits greater than 55 mph (up to 65 mph on the tolled Autopistas). However, I believe Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has freeway standard roads.
DC
:bigass:
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 21, 2015, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2015, 09:55:33 AMNJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65
I believe CT holds that claim to fame.
And still, Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has speed limits greater than 55 mph (up to 65 mph on the tolled Autopistas). However, I believe Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has freeway standard roads.
DC
:bigass:
Would one actually consider DC-295, I-395, I-295, I-695, and the sad stub of I-66 freeway standard?
/sarc
I'd consider I-295 south of the South Capitol Street interchange, especially the northbound side, to be reasonably up to standard, aside from some potholes. I certainly don't hesitate to do 65 mph on either side of that road except when I go past the speed cameras near Blue Plains.
295 was built to the standards of the time (late '50s), but the shoulders and many of the ramp termini (especially at Malcolm X) are not up to today's standards.
Jeffandnicole's earlier statement (& my earlier reply) was in reference to the 48 contiguous states, not territories nor districts.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 21, 2015, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2015, 09:55:33 AMNJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65
I believe CT holds that claim to fame.
And still, Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has speed limits greater than 55 mph (up to 65 mph on the tolled Autopistas). However, I believe Puerto Rico is the only U.S. territory that has freeway standard roads.
DC
Washington D.C. is not a territory, but a federal district.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 21, 2015, 02:51:19 PM
Washington D.C. is not a territory, but a federal district.
That's why I used the big smiley you omitted when you quoted me!
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
295 was built to the standards of the time (late '50s), but the shoulders and many of the ramp termini (especially at Malcolm X) are not up to today's standards.
Notice he didn't say "today's standards" and I hedged my comment by using the word "reasonably."
I did notice that, and technically considering Brandon only mentioned "freeway standard", all of the routes he cited meet "freeway standard". My response was in part to your reply but also highlights one possible reason why we don't see a higher speed limit along I-295 (the only route, BTW, I'd consider posting at 55 or higher inside the District, Wilson Bridge notwithstanding).
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 04:12:43 PM
I did notice that, and technically considering Brandon only mentioned "freeway standard", all of the routes he cited meet "freeway standard". My response was in part to your reply but also highlights one possible reason why we don't see a higher speed limit along I-295 (the only route, BTW, I'd consider posting at 55 or higher inside the District, Wilson Bridge notwithstanding).
Absolutely agreed on the bolded text, and even though I regularly drive 65 mph on there, if I were making the decisions I doubt I'd post it above 60 mph, and any such higher limit would be solely on the southern portion. Southbound I'd probably have it increase roughly at the point where you pass the new streetcar barn. In the northbound direction I'd probably have it drop to 50 or below as you come down the hill north of Malcolm X Avenue. There's no question the speed limit needs to be lower by the time you reach the South Capitol Street/Suitland Parkway interchange and the troublesome weave area just northeast of there between said interchange and the 11th Street Bridge/DC-295.
Of course southbound there's the issue of the slip-ramp style on-ramp located just south of the overpass above South Capitol Street followed in short order by the exit for Blue Plains, but the huge majority of the traffic I see on there has no real problem with that merge.
(BTW, in my earlier post I referred to the "South Capitol Street interchange." I was referring to the cloverleaf located near the Anacostia Metro stop; it serves South Capitol Street and the Douglass Bridge to the north and Suitland Parkway to the south. I think of it as the "South Capitol Street interchange" because if I use that interchange, 95% of the time I'm coming from Nationals Park. I realized as I typed this reply that there is, of course, a southbound exit marked for South Capitol Street/Malcolm X Avenue/Bolling AFB–I think the sign now just says "JBAB" per the new name–where the road narrows to two lanes, but it's just an offramp rather than a full interchange. Still, I realized it was potentially an ambiguous reference!)
I understand why some people will hit 55 on the DC portion of the Clara Barton Parkway or on Canal Road when it's in one-way operation, but that's too fast for those roads. If you want to do 55 going that way, use the GW Parkway in Virginia.
Getting back to Maryland and 70-mph speed limits, I realized one reason I didn't know I-895 has a segment at 65 nowadays is that the last couple of times I've used that road, I've come southbound through the tunnel and then turned off onto I-97. I can't remember the last time I took it all the way to I-95 and I cannot remember what a safe speed would be on the ramp from I-895 to southbound I-95. But I'm certain the yellow advisory speed sign would recommend something less than 65. It seems kind of pointless to post a 70-mph speed limit for only five miles like that.
In the same vein, I kind of like what VDOT did with posting a higher speed limit in the HO/T lanes on the Beltway. If the I-95 Express Toll Lanes were extended further north, it might be an ideal place for a 70-mph speed limit in those lanes even if the mainline has something lower. But right now, with them ending just north of White Marsh, there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 04:12:43 PM
I did notice that, and technically considering Brandon only mentioned "freeway standard", all of the routes he cited meet "freeway standard". My response was in part to your reply but also highlights one possible reason why we don't see a higher speed limit along I-295 (the only route, BTW, I'd consider posting at 55 or higher inside the District, Wilson Bridge notwithstanding).
I was also being snarky. Obviously the "/sarc" is missed by many.
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2015, 05:25:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 04:12:43 PM
I did notice that, and technically considering Brandon only mentioned "freeway standard", all of the routes he cited meet "freeway standard". My response was in part to your reply but also highlights one possible reason why we don't see a higher speed limit along I-295 (the only route, BTW, I'd consider posting at 55 or higher inside the District, Wilson Bridge notwithstanding).
I was also being snarky. Obviously the "/sarc" is missed by many.
I saw it but wasn't sure what it meant! :-(
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 12:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2015, 09:55:33 AMNJ was the last of the contiguous 48 states to go from 55 to 65
I believe CT holds that claim to fame.
Wow. October 1998. I had always thought NJ had that title. I think they permitted 65 starting May of 1998.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 09:47:03 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
There was plenty of intransigence on the part of certain members of the General Assembly as well.
You would definitely know better than I would, especially as during the 1991—95 period I spent most of my time in Charlottesville (or Durham in the second half of 1995). I focused on the former governor because I seemed to recall he essentially told the General Assembly that it didn't matter what they did because he would veto any 65-mph bill and, if they overrode his veto, he'd ensure the people in charge at the SHA were people who would not raise any speed limits (essentially making said agency like Oregon's, I guess). My memory is probably not 100% accurate on all the details, but I remember Schaefer being particularly adamant as to this issue, and I also remember how 65-mph limits came very quickly once Parris Glendening took over–from what I recall, Maryland posted 65 shortly before New York did, and both of them were among the last states to do it prior to the NMSL repeal in the fall of 1995.
That is reasonably consistent with my understanding.
Curious too, since Schaefer (unlike Glendening) was usually a pro-highways governor (most of the upgrading of I-270 in Montgomery County; I-68 between Cumberland and Hancock; and the conversion of U.S. 50/U.S. 301 between the Bay Bridge and Queenstown from a miserably congested four-lane arterial with plenty of at-grade signalized intersections to the six-lane expressway-type road that's there now were all completed under his administration). The project planning study for the ICC was initiated under Schaefer (that Glendening later killed), though Schaefer returned the favor by blocking (as Comptroller) consideration of Glendening's proposals to sell the ICC right-of-way.
Schaefer also got the Baltimore Central Light Rail designed and built (albeit with long single-track sections) during his years in office as governor.
My thoughts on what roads might be posted for 70 MPH:
I-68: Definitely west of Cumberland, maybe they will cut off at the Savage Mountain grade. I think the sections east of the 40 MPH Cumberland viaduct might be a little too narrow and windy.
I-70: At least from PA to Exit 24 and east of Frederick to US 40 near Elicott City. There are too many close exits in Hagerstown and Frederick to post at 70 MPH, plus traffic is much heavier.
I-95: It is definitely possible to see 70 MPH north of White Marsh and maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
I-81: I don't see 70 being posted yet. The Hagerstown area definitely will stay 60 MPH due to the number of exits and short acceleration lanes. I don't see the area south of I-70 being raised, at least until the Potomac River bridges are redone. Going north, I would assume it stays 65 unless PA raises I-81 to 70.
I-83: The road might be a bit narrow for 70 MPH if I remember the section north of Hunt Valley.
I-97: Might be too urban to raise the speed limit.
I can't think of many US or MD routes that could take 70 MPH (maybe MD 100 or US 50 between DC and Annapolis). Definitely no 3DIs stand out.
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
Definitely no 3DIs stand out.
Though in the pre-NMSL days, I-495 in Prince George's County was posted at 70 MPH from (roughly) the Woodrow Wilson Bridge around to U.S. 50 (John Hanson Highway). Not sure it's a good idea now, though the 85th percentile speed is way above the posted 55 MPH limit. Most of Maryland's part of the Capital Beltway could be 60 or 65, save for the "roller coaster" section between I-270Y (I-270 Spur, Exit 38 on the Inner Loop) and Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue, Exit 31).
Some MD, US, I- routes that I remember that work for 70 MPH:
MD 100 east of I-95 to east terminus
US 29 south of MD 100 to ICC or MD 650 (New Hampshire Avenue). The section between MD 100 and I-70 is too congested to be considered for 70 MPH.
I-95 between I-495 and I-195
I-95 Between I-695 (Exit 64) to DE State Line
I-370 whole length
MD 200 whole length
I-270 between I-370 and MD 109
I-81 whole length
I-70 between PA State Line to US 40 (Exit 32)
I-70 between Exit 55 to US 29
MD 32 between I-97 and I-95
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
I-95: ...maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
Wasn't this area one of the last to receive the 65 mph signage? I really don't see stretch of highway being signed for 70.
North of White Marsh though - definitely (other than the Susquahanna bridge area).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2015, 05:45:18 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
I-95: ...maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
Wasn't this area one of the last to receive the 65 mph signage? I really don't see stretch of highway being signed for 70.
North of White Marsh though - definitely (other than the Susquahanna bridge area).
I see no reason to not sign I-95 from DE to 695 as 70mph. The bridge itself can have a lower limit due to crosswinds. There are worse sections of roads in other states that are signed as 70.
Any idea if or when SHA will begin speed limit studies? Has SHA hinted that it likes or dislikes the statutory 70 MPH maximum?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2015, 05:45:18 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
I-95: ...maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
Wasn't this area one of the last to receive the 65 mph signage? I really don't see stretch of highway being signed for 70.
North of White Marsh though - definitely (other than the Susquahanna bridge area).
As far as major stretches of road? Yes. However, if you're technical, the last section to receive a 65 MPH speed limit was the stretch between I-695 and White Marsh (when the ETLs were completed). Also, I-68 had a recent revision to 65 MPH (last couple of years) at the top of the hill east of Cumberland.
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 22, 2015, 06:19:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2015, 05:45:18 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
I-95: ...maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
Wasn't this area one of the last to receive the 65 mph signage? I really don't see stretch of highway being signed for 70.
North of White Marsh though - definitely (other than the Susquahanna bridge area).
As far as major stretches of road? Yes. However, if you're technical, the last section to receive a 65 MPH speed limit was the stretch between I-695 and White Marsh (when the ETLs were completed). Also, I-68 had a recent revision to 65 MPH (last couple of years) at the top of the hill east of Cumberland.
I didn't really care and decided that just 20 miles of I-95 could be 70 MPH (between I-495 and I-195) - however, the portion between I-195 and I-395 I hesitated about - I think I-95 could be 70 through Baltimore.
The operative word in the final clause of the post immediately above mine is "could"!!!!!! I-95 through Baltimore will not be posted at 70 mph, even after the current construction is done.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2015, 09:43:08 PM
The operative word in the final clause of the post immediately above mine is "could"!!!!!! I-95 through Baltimore will not be posted at 70 mph, even after the current construction is done.
The Maryland Transportation Authority maintains all of I-95 through Baltimore City, and they tend to be
very conservative when it comes to setting speed limits (consider the amount of time and hassle it took to increase the posted limit on Md. 200 from 55 MPH to 60 MPH).
Even if it stays at 50 MPH (or maybe 55), it's not a very long ride to get from one side of the city to the other.
Beyond that, I do not think the interchanges are designed for speeds much higher than 55 MPH.
Quote from: mcmc on August 22, 2015, 05:28:07 PM
Any idea if or when SHA will begin speed limit studies? Has SHA hinted that it likes or dislikes the statutory 70 MPH maximum?
No. Keep in mind that the head of SHA is a new hire (http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Pages/release.aspx?newsId=2289), who has not started yet (his first day is September 16).
But he comes to SHA from the Michigan Department of Transportation, a state that has long had (higher) posted speed limits on its freeway system than Maryland does, even in urban areas.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2015, 11:14:15 PM
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 10:01:47 AM
I suspect that I-70 west of Exit 82 (Where it becomes 3 lanes where US 40 splits off) all the way to the PA state line could become 70 mph. Right now it is 65 that whole way.
I am not so enthused about raising the speed limit on I-70 between Md. 66 (Boonsboro, Exit 35) and the half-interchange at U.S. 40 Alternate (Braddock Heights, Exit 49).
The grades there are (by Maryland standards) pretty long and steep, and the eastbound side descents (especially between the crest of the Blue Ridge [South Mountain], the rest area and down to Md. 17 (Myersville, Exit 42)) should probably not have a limit higher than 65.
Funny thing though that section was 70 mph back before 1973/4 :-)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2015, 10:08:45 PM
Quote from: mcmc on August 22, 2015, 05:28:07 PM
Any idea if or when SHA will begin speed limit studies? Has SHA hinted that it likes or dislikes the statutory 70 MPH maximum?
No. Keep in mind that the head of SHA is a new hire (http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Pages/release.aspx?newsId=2289), who has not started yet (his first day is September 16).
But he comes to SHA from the Michigan Department of Transportation, a state that has long had (higher) posted speed limits on its freeway system than Maryland does, even in urban areas.
I'd imagine that like in NY, that the new head of SHA would be following the governor's lead.
Quote from: Rothman on August 22, 2015, 11:42:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2015, 10:08:45 PM
Quote from: mcmc on August 22, 2015, 05:28:07 PM
Any idea if or when SHA will begin speed limit studies? Has SHA hinted that it likes or dislikes the statutory 70 MPH maximum?
No. Keep in mind that the head of SHA is a new hire (http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Pages/release.aspx?newsId=2289), who has not started yet (his first day is September 16).
But he comes to SHA from the Michigan Department of Transportation, a state that has long had (higher) posted speed limits on its freeway system than Maryland does, even in urban areas.
I'd imagine that like in NY, that the new head of SHA would be following the governor's lead.
I imagine that is how DOT heads get selected for the job.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 22, 2015, 07:59:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2015, 05:45:18 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
I-95: ...maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
Wasn't this area one of the last to receive the 65 mph signage? I really don't see stretch of highway being signed for 70.
North of White Marsh though - definitely (other than the Susquahanna bridge area).
I see no reason to not sign I-95 from DE to 695 as 70mph. The bridge itself can have a lower limit due to crosswinds. There are worse sections of roads in other states that are signed as 70.
"Between the beltways" I assumed meant inside of I-695, or south of Baltimore, between I-695 & I-495. But either way, it wasn't referring to the area north of Baltimore, which I would expect to be mostly 70. If they went a little conservative, they would post 70 mph north of MD 24 to the DE State Line.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 22, 2015, 06:25:02 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 22, 2015, 06:19:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2015, 05:45:18 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on August 21, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
I-95: ...maybe between the Beltways, but traffic counts concern me (prevailing speeds are definitely above 70 though).
Wasn't this area one of the last to receive the 65 mph signage? I really don't see stretch of highway being signed for 70.
North of White Marsh though - definitely (other than the Susquahanna bridge area).
As far as major stretches of road? Yes. However, if you're technical, the last section to receive a 65 MPH speed limit was the stretch between I-695 and White Marsh (when the ETLs were completed). Also, I-68 had a recent revision to 65 MPH (last couple of years) at the top of the hill east of Cumberland.
I didn't really care and decided that just 20 miles of I-95 could be 70 MPH (between I-495 and I-195) - however, the portion between I-195 and I-395 I hesitated about - I think I-95 could be 70 through Baltimore.
I think it can be easily assumed that any highway signed at 55 mph today isn't suddenly going to be 70 mph.
When I took my trip down to DC a month ago, mostly everyone was doing 70+ already on I-95 north of Baltimore. Even as you approached the Fort McHenry Tunnel, people were still doing well above the speed limit. North of MD 275 can easily be 70 MPH, and so can everything south of the Susquehanna River bridge to MD 152. As you approach the (Baltimore) beltway, where congestion is much more frequent, 55 (while ignored regardless) is fine there.
On the Capital Beltway, I don't think that'll ever get higher than 65. The Capital Beltway is nuts as it is.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 23, 2015, 06:20:39 PM
When I took my trip down to DC a month ago, mostly everyone was doing 70+ already on I-95 north of Baltimore.
Honestly, I think free-flowing traffic on nearly every interstate tends to average greater than 70 mph, regardless of the speed limit.
Heh. On my way up I-270 last Sunday en route to Gettysburg, I set my cruise control at 65 and I was pretty much the slowest car on the road. Didn't matter to me one bit. Had to cancel the cruise control when we hit the 65-mph zone and the road narrowed, but we didn't get above 65 after that due to traffic volumes.
If MD is raising the speed limit on the most rural freeways to 70, are they ever going to consider raising US 301 from US 50 to the Delaware border to at least 60? Or how about the section of US 15 from Frederick to the PA Line as well?
Both roads are expressway grade and its because of the at grade intersections (none are fully signalized on both) its kept at 55 under MD Law, but could easily handle an increase and really should have one.
As you said, it's because of MD law. The state legislature would have to change the law to allow non-freeways to be posted higher than 55. The other option would be for SHA to spend the tens of millions (but more likely into 9-digit territory) of dollars to upgrade both routes to freeway, after which they could be posted up to 65. And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
Congratulations MD, hopefully these kinds of initiaties will start to snowball over the next few years in the NE. NY for example, nobody goes at 65 on I-90/New York Thruway.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 08, 2015, 10:01:33 PM
If MD is raising the speed limit on the most rural freeways to 70, are they ever going to consider raising US 301 from US 50 to the Delaware border to at least 60? Or how about the section of US 15 from Frederick to the PA Line as well?
Both roads are expressway grade and its because of the at grade intersections (none are fully signalized on both) its kept at 55 under MD Law, but could easily handle an increase and really should have one.
The 2014 Legislative session had a bill that would have permitted a 65 MPH speed limit on these types of roads. As with the 70 MPH bill introduced that session, it was left in a drawer by the head of the State Senate judiciary committee. Now that he is Attorney General, something like this may be tackled in the 2016 legislative session.
Quote from: mattpedersen on September 09, 2015, 06:02:42 PM
The 2014 Legislative session had a bill that would have permitted a 65 MPH speed limit on these types of roads. As with the 70 MPH bill introduced that session, it was left in a drawer by the head of the State Senate judiciary committee. Now that he is Attorney General, something like this may be tackled in the 2016 legislative session.
I suspect he was heavily lobbied by the Montgomery County Sierra Club to not go along with any increase in highway speed limits.
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
.... And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
I might go a step beyond that to say "few people would dispute there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301"!
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2015, 07:19:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
.... And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
I might go a step beyond that to say "few people would dispute there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301"!
I take MD has more other pressing road issues than 301 LOL! Anyway, most of US 301 are either Shunpikers or those looking to bypass Baltimore who are not Maryland natives, so the demand is strictly for the passers through who have to stay at 55 on a road that could more than easily handle a speed increase. Hey I bet before Nixon implemented the national 55 law, it was at least 60 from Queenstown to the Delaware Line.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2015, 07:19:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
.... And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
I might go a step beyond that to say "few people would dispute there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301"!
I take MD has more other pressing road issues than 301 LOL!
cough*western Capital Beltway*cough
Quote from: kj3400 on September 10, 2015, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2015, 07:19:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
.... And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
I might go a step beyond that to say "few people would dispute there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301"!
I take MD has more other pressing road issues than 301 LOL!
cough*western Capital Beltway*cough
Don't hold your breath on an outer Beltway. A second Rosslyn rail tube complex is probably going to be the first new crossing, whenever that comes. There aren't any philosophical objections to that. A new bridge upriver would be a political battle and not generate enough traffic to justify it, along with environmental considerations.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2015, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on September 10, 2015, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2015, 07:19:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
.... And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
I might go a step beyond that to say "few people would dispute there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301"!
I take MD has more other pressing road issues than 301 LOL!
cough*western Capital Beltway*cough
Don't hold your breath on an outer Beltway. A second Rosslyn rail tube complex is probably going to be the first new crossing, whenever that comes. There aren't any philosophical objections to that. A new bridge upriver would be a political battle and not generate enough traffic to justify it, along with environmental considerations.
I was just hoping for the widening actually.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 10, 2015, 09:41:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2015, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on September 10, 2015, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2015, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2015, 07:19:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2015, 07:56:47 AM
.... And it could be strongly argued that there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301.
I might go a step beyond that to say "few people would dispute there is more pressing need/higher priority elsewhere than 301"!
I take MD has more other pressing road issues than 301 LOL!
cough*western Capital Beltway*cough
Don't hold your breath on an outer Beltway. A second Rosslyn rail tube complex is probably going to be the first new crossing, whenever that comes. There aren't any philosophical objections to that. A new bridge upriver would be a political battle and not generate enough traffic to justify it, along with environmental considerations.
I was just hoping for the widening actually.
Everywhere in MD has to be widened. I-81 has to be widened through Hagerstown to the PA state line.