Hello. I haven't posted in a while but I found these articles and I thought I would share them with the AARoads community! I'm a new driver and when I drive on freeways like I-94 and U.S 131, I find myself and other drivers going 75-85 MPH. I'm glad that the state is increasing the speed limit so people can get to their destinations faster. Here are the very interesting articles
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/75-mph_speed_limits_officially.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/see_which_600_miles_of_michiga.html
It's been discussed in the Michigan Notes thread pretty extensively.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7953.msg2221254#msg2221254
Still waiting for the 65mph limits to get posted in da U.P., eh! But the 75mph limits on certain freeways (and the apparent boost in truck speed limits to 65mph on most freeways) is certainly welcome.
Northern Michigan has 75 mph speed limits. I've seen 75 mph signs on I-75, US 10 and US 127. This was done recently.
Quote from: JREwing78Still waiting for the 65mph limits to get posted in da U.P., eh!
You haven't been on US 2 east of Rapid River lately, have you?
Quote from: froggie on August 09, 2017, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: JREwing78Still waiting for the 65mph limits to get posted in da U.P., eh!
You haven't been on US 2 east of Rapid River lately, have you?
No. But that was only done within the last few weeks. They've purposely slow-walked the upgrades, in part because it requires moving signs and restriping passing zones. I haven't seen any articles indicating other routes in the UP changing yet.
Most of the signs they switched to 75 mph they just put the 75 over the 70 and kept the same sign.
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 09, 2017, 11:52:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 09, 2017, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: JREwing78Still waiting for the 65mph limits to get posted in da U.P., eh!
You haven't been on US 2 east of Rapid River lately, have you?
No. But that was only done within the last few weeks. They've purposely slow-walked the upgrades, in part because it requires moving signs and restriping passing zones. I haven't seen any articles indicating other routes in the UP changing yet.
It's a good thing dey're changing it IMO - on a trip up dere in August with da family (driven by my dad, who speeds a lot more than I do), 55-62 felt rather like a crawl on some of dose rural 2-lane highways.
I've noticed that the truck speed limit has been raised to 65 on some segments of freeway that are staying 70, but the truck speed is still 60 in other places. I'm not sure if it's going up statewide and just taking some time to change all the signs... otherwise, it seems pretty arbitrary.
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 09, 2017, 11:52:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 09, 2017, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: JREwing78Still waiting for the 65mph limits to get posted in da U.P., eh!
You haven't been on US 2 east of Rapid River lately, have you?
No. But that was only done within the last few weeks. They've purposely slow-walked the upgrades, in part because it requires moving signs and restriping passing zones. I haven't seen any articles indicating other routes in the UP changing yet.
US 2/41
west of Rapid River has been 65 for probably 8-10 years. It went up at the same time that US 127 did between St. Johns and Ithaca.
I went up US-45 to the Keweenaw last weekend, and back down US-141. Not a whiff of the new 65mph speed limits anywhere. I did see a couple areas with survey stakes that *might* indicate an upgrade is pending, but no new posted speed limit signs.
Quote from: JREwing78 on October 05, 2017, 08:02:29 PM
I went up US-45 to the Keweenaw last weekend, and back down US-141. Not a whiff of the new 65mph speed limits anywhere. I did see a couple areas with survey stakes that *might* indicate an upgrade is pending, but no new posted speed limit signs.
Except for where US 141 overlaps M-28, that highway is not getting an increased limit. It's apparent that these changes have a low priority. It took mere days to change the freeways over, but it's been months to get other highways switched. I understand that the freeway changes were a lot simpler than the two-lane highways which need revised passing zones, but even specific curves on the freeways needed 70 mph advisor signage installed, so it wasn't just a matter of driving along and switching every speed limit sign.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on October 05, 2017, 08:39:52 PM
It's apparent that these changes have a low priority. It took mere days to change the freeways over, but it's been months to get other highways switched. I understand that the freeway changes were a lot simpler than the two-lane highways which need revised passing zones, but even specific curves on the freeways needed 70 mph advisor signage installed, so it wasn't just a matter of driving along and switching every speed limit sign.
Indeed. I did some extensive driving in the UP weekend before last and while US-2 from east of Rapid River to St. Ignace has been posted at 65 since before Labor Day Weekend, I found that M-28 hasn't been touched at all (at least east of the M-95 jct at Koski Corners). It felt quite odd to be doing 65 on US-2 without a care, but to be constantly scanning the horizon watching for State Police on the M-28 "Seney Stretch" also doing 65 (like everyone else does). The Seney Stretch is so flat, straight and boring that I would've almost thought that would've been the first one to get the new signs. It's not like there's a lot of no passing zones through there! :hmm:
One route that will NOT be going to 65 in the UP, but IMHO should be, is M-95. Long stretches of nothing, no sharp curves, lower traffic volumes than some of the other going-to-65 routes... I wonder if it fell juuuuust below the cutoff on the seemingly arbitrary criteria for what made the 65 bump and what didn't...
I agree with that "arbitrary" assessment. There's few state highways in the U.P. that couldn't be safely bumped to 65.
Didn't the law authorizing the increases cap the mileage to which could be increased? If my recollection is true, then yes, they needed some arbitrary criteria to limit the scope of the increases. I wonder if in the future there will be a request for an amendment to the cap to allow additional mileage to get increased.
In actuality the increase from 70 mph to 75 mph is negligible. I read an article, I don't recall where...perhaps from MLive that you'd only save a few minutes on your drive time from Bay City to Mackinaw City. I rarely drive 75 mph as I find 70 mph is adequate. Further the faster you drive increases your fuel consumption.
Now I feel the increase from 55 mph to 65 mph on state roads is more significant...especially for the Upper Peninsula. Since there are no east/west freeways up there this is the next best thing.
Quote from: roadgeek on November 22, 2017, 10:02:55 AM
In actuality the increase from 70 mph to 75 mph is negligible. ....
Well, look at it this way:
At 60 mph, you're driving one mile per minute.
At 65 mph, you're driving 1.0833 (etc.) miles per minute. ("Etc." denoting a repeating decimal since I don't know of a way to type a viniculum.)
At 70 mph, you're driving 1.1666 (etc.) miles per minute.
At 75 mph, you're driving 1.25 miles per minute.
Put in those terms, it doesn't sound like much of a difference. Obviously the difference between 60 and 75 is more significant than it sounds above. You'd go an extra 30 miles every two hours. But 70 versus 75? It would take six hours to go those extra 30 miles (assuming, of course, that you obey all speed limits and encounter no speed limit changes en route).
Regarding fuel consumption, in theory the ideal speed would be the lowest speed that allows for reasonable cruising in your highest gear without lugging the engine on uphill grades.
Quote from: roadgeek on November 22, 2017, 10:02:55 AM
In actuality the increase from 70 mph to 75 mph is negligible. I read an article, I don't recall where...perhaps from MLive that you'd only save a few minutes on your drive time from Bay City to Mackinaw City. I rarely drive 75 mph as I find 70 mph is adequate. Further the faster you drive increases your fuel consumption.
Now I feel the increase from 55 mph to 65 mph on state roads is more significant...especially for the Upper Peninsula. Since there are no east/west freeways up there this is the next best thing.
What the increase does is to pull the slowpokes up to the speed of the rest of traffic (or at least near).
Quote from: Brandon on November 22, 2017, 10:37:27 AM
Quote from: roadgeek on November 22, 2017, 10:02:55 AM
In actuality the increase from 70 mph to 75 mph is negligible. I read an article, I don't recall where...perhaps from MLive that you'd only save a few minutes on your drive time from Bay City to Mackinaw City. I rarely drive 75 mph as I find 70 mph is adequate. Further the faster you drive increases your fuel consumption.
Now I feel the increase from 55 mph to 65 mph on state roads is more significant...especially for the Upper Peninsula. Since there are no east/west freeways up there this is the next best thing.
What the increase does is to pull the slowpokes up to the speed of the rest of traffic (or at least near).
In theory maybe. In actuality, bonehead drivers are still tying up the left lane doing about 55 MPH with people approaching them from the rear going faster now. Not a good situation.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 22, 2017, 10:12:41 AM
Quote from: roadgeek on November 22, 2017, 10:02:55 AM
In actuality the increase from 70 mph to 75 mph is negligible. ....
Well, look at it this way:
At 60 mph, you're driving one mile per minute.
At 65 mph, you're driving 1.0833 (etc.) miles per minute. ("Etc." denoting a repeating decimal since I don't know of a way to type a viniculum.)
At 70 mph, you're driving 1.1666 (etc.) miles per minute.
At 75 mph, you're driving 1.25 miles per minute.
Put in those terms, it doesn't sound like much of a difference. Obviously the difference between 60 and 75 is more significant than it sounds above. You'd go an extra 30 miles every two hours. But 70 versus 75? It would take six hours to go those extra 30 miles (assuming, of course, that you obey all speed limits and encounter no speed limit changes en route).
Regarding fuel consumption, in theory the ideal speed would be the lowest speed that allows for reasonable cruising in your highest gear without lugging the engine on uphill grades.
More concretely:
170 miles @ 70 mph = 2 hours 26 minutes
170 miles @ 75 mph = 2 hours 16 minutes
Time savings = 10 minutes
I don't think that's negligible at all.
FWIW... the lower the speed limit, the more time you save by driving 5 mph faster. 60/65 is a 13-minute difference over the same 170 miles, 50/55 is a 19-minute difference, and so forth.
I just know doing 80 mph you make 1 mile every 45 seconds.
Indulge me for a moment - because I've spent way too much time making this particular drive...
If you were to average 65 mph on the 270 miles between Houghton, MI and the Mackinac Bridge (v.s. averaging 55), you'd chop a solid 45 minutes off your trip, going from
4 hours, 55 minutes to
4 hours, 10 minutes.
I say "average", because although you're momentarily slowed down in more populated areas, a typical driver doing 5 over basically cancels the slowdowns.Now, for the remaining 232 miles to Lansing:
- In 1986, stuck at 55 mph, that trip took you about 4 hours, 12 minutes.
- After Michigan raised the freeway speed limit to 65 in the late '80s, that trip took about 3 hours, 33 minutes, or a savings of nearly 40 minutes.
- When Michigan raised the freeway limit to 70 in the late '90s, that trip took 3 hours, 18 minutes, saving an additional 15 minutes.
- Finally, with the limit at 75 south of the bridge, the trip now takes 3 hours, 6 minutes.
You've gained an entire hour (and 6 minutes) back of your life! 8-)
Once MDOT raises the rest of the rural U.P. highways to 65, your ~500 mile trip between Houghton and Lansing will go from taking
9 hours, 7 minutes to
7 hours, 16 minutes. You've chopped damn near
2 hours off the trip! That's pretty significant!
Of course, we're assuming it's around Labor Day instead of, say, New Year's Day - lake effect snow has a way of slowing things down. I now make that trip to Houghton from Janesville, WI. By my rough calculations, the 363 mile trip (via Wausau and Rhinelander) currently takes
5 hours, 48 minutes. If Wisconsin adopted Michigan's maximum speed limits by highway type (and Michigan applied it to all of US-45 and M-26), I'd save about
30 minutes.
What about at 80 mph? That's really what the speed limit should be. I just don't have the time to figure this out.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 28, 2017, 08:39:03 PM
I just know doing 80 mph you make 1 mile every 45 seconds.
Shouldn't that be 90 mph, not 80?
Quote from: Bickendan on November 30, 2017, 03:42:08 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 28, 2017, 08:39:03 PM
I just know doing 80 mph you make 1 mile every 45 seconds.
Shouldn't that be 90 mph, not 80?
No. 60 is 3/4s of 80. Hence, whatever the mileage is, you multiply by 3 and divide by 4 to get your time in minutes at 80 mph.
Quote from: Bickendan on November 30, 2017, 03:42:08 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 28, 2017, 08:39:03 PM
I just know doing 80 mph you make 1 mile every 45 seconds.
Shouldn't that be 90 mph, not 80?
90 mph is 1 mile every 40 seconds.
St. Ignace to Lansing, averaging 80mph: 2 hours, 54 minutes
I love what Michigan is doing with their speed limits but does anyone know if more are going up soon other than those announced in the summer?
Quote from: Brandon on November 30, 2017, 05:26:23 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 30, 2017, 03:42:08 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 28, 2017, 08:39:03 PM
I just know doing 80 mph you make 1 mile every 45 seconds.
Shouldn't that be 90 mph, not 80?
No. 60 is 3/4s of 80. Hence, whatever the mileage is, you multiply by 3 and divide by 4 to get your time in minutes at 80 mph.
And 60 is 2/3 of 90. Same logic applies.
I drove on US 10 all the way from Bay City to M-66 and back last night. It's 75 mph for the entire freeway stretch then drops down to 55 mph once the freeway stretch ends on the west end just after M-115.
So, I finally spent some quality time on many of the 2-lanes in Michigan posted for 65 mph, including M-65, US-23 north of Alpena, M-123, and US-2. A few thoughts:
- I'm surprised how much more relaxing the trip is with the new limits. There's less variation in speeds now, which means fewer people trying to make questionable passing decisions.
- For the most part, it appears they simply replaced the 55 mph sections with 65 mph sections, with no new intermediary sections gradually bringing drivers down or up to 65. The one exception I encountered was east of Rapid River, which was inexplicably posted for 60 mph.
- It's not obvious what drove the decision making of what made the cut, and what didn't. M-123 north of M-28 seems awful narrow and littered with driveways to merit a posted 65 mph. Meanwhile, M-26 south of Houghton, US-141, and US-41 between Chassel and Ishpeming certainly seem worth the upgraded limits.
- Also surprising, no sense of urgency to upgrade additional sections of highway to 65 mph. We haven't heard a peep out of MDOT about any studies or surveys to establish whether they wish to leave the existing sections in place, remove them, or expand them.
Here are some roads that I'm surprised aren't 65:
M-52 from I-96 to the southern M-36 junction
M-37 from Newaygo to Baldwin (outside of White Cloud and Brohman)
M-20 from US-31 to US-131 (outside of Hesperia and White Cloud)
M-55 from Lake City to Houghton Lake and from M-157 to I-75
US-131 from the northern end of the freeway to Kalkaska
If I'm not mistaken, the law that allowed MDOT and MSP to increase speed limits also set an upper cap at the number of miles that could be increased. There are probably many candidates that would have been bumped, but to do so would have exceeded the allowable mileage.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on October 28, 2018, 02:30:17 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the law that allowed MDOT and MSP to increase speed limits also set an upper cap at the number of miles that could be increased. There are probably many candidates that would have been bumped, but to do so would have exceeded the allowable mileage.
Technicalities 🤬
What is the benefit that governments see from setting such caps?
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 28, 2018, 03:53:55 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on October 28, 2018, 02:30:17 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the law that allowed MDOT and MSP to increase speed limits also set an upper cap at the number of miles that could be increased. There are probably many candidates that would have been bumped, but to do so would have exceeded the allowable mileage.
Technicalities 🤬
What is the benefit that governments see from setting such caps?
Perhaps it got a few hesitant legislators on board, and if they made the difference in the voting margin, then it was a matter of passing the law or not.