AARoads Forum

I have come up with a list of states that have recently proposed increasing their maximum speed limits.  Here is what I have found so far:

Passed

   
• Maryland - 65 to 70
• Michigan - 70 to 75 (lowered from 80)
• Montana - 75 to 80
• Nevada - 75 to 80
• New Hampshire - 65 to 70
• Oregon - 65 to 70 (lowered from 75)
• South Dakota - 75 to 80
• Wisconsin - 65 to 70

Pending

   
• Arkansas - 70 to 75
• Illinois - 70 to 75
• Iowa - 70 to 75
• Missouri - 70 to 75
• Oklahoma - 75 to 80
• Washington - 70 to 75

Stalled

   
• Kansas - 75 to 80
• Ohio - 70 to 75
• Nebraska - 75 to 80
• Mississippi - 70 to 75
• North Dakota - 75 to 80
• West Virginia - 70 to 80

Does anyone know of any other proposals that I missed?

Montana isn't stalled- the bills that originated in the House all died but the Senate bill is still alive and well. There were several speed limit bills this cycle- this one looks like it will advance because it raises speeding fines to more than $20 for 5-10 over and allows insurance companies to be notified if a vehicle is ticketed for >85 MPH regardless of the posted speed limit (currently any speed <10 MPH over cannot by law be reported to insurance) in addition to raising car and truck speed limits.

The bills that died either also tried to raise the speed limit to 80 off-interstate or didn't also raise truck speed limits.


There's a hearing on it on Thursday.

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=375&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20151

Passed

New Hampshire - 65 to 70

Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2015, 08:44:10 PM
Passed

New Hampshire - 65 to 70

Only partially.  The proposal to raise I-93 to 70 passed, but I haven't heard anything on the proposal to do the same for I-89 and NH 101 since it was introduced.

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

Missouri is again considering 75.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 09:17:11 PM
Washington going from 70 to 75 is news to me. Any link? If that's true I think that's awesome.

Only on I-90 in central Washington
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/26/washington-considers-75-mph-speed-limit/

There was stuff proposing for New York to go from 65 to 75 in rural areas in late 2013, but I haven't seen anything about it in over a year

An 85 bill came up in the last Nevada legislature.  It passed in the Senate and passed an Assembly committee but then died without an Assembly floor vote.  I never saw a good explanation, but reading between the lines it sounded like the governor didn't want to sign it because he's the one who gets blamed the first time some kids die.  He's still the governor and it seems unlikely that a GOP legislature would override a GOP governor's veto, but I'm no political insider and we'll see if the dynamic has changed in two years.

We had a bill during the last legislative session to bump NC up to 75 but it died, I am not aware of any new bills out there yet here.

Quote from: corco on March 03, 2015, 09:29:48 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 09:17:11 PM
Washington going from 70 to 75 is news to me. Any link? If that's true I think that's awesome.

Only on I-90 in central Washington
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/26/washington-considers-75-mph-speed-limit/

I-5 could stand an increase between Olympia/Vancouver and Marysville/Canada, but I'll take it as it comes.

Source on the Oregon one? I haven't seen anything recent, and anything in the past few years to come out has died as far as I'm aware. Nothing would make me happier than a big increase in speed limits there. I'm gonna drive 75+ anyways (and 65+ on 2 laners), how about letting me focus more on the road than being paranoid for cops while I'm at it.

As for recently passed, last summer Idaho increased rural interstates from 75 to 80. Making the Oregon border even more painful in the process...

In Washington, there are three bills to raise the speed limit on I-90 to 75, and one bill that would allow a speed limit of 75 on any highway or portion thereof when that speed is found to be reasonable and safe.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2181.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2181.pdf)

In Oregon, there's a bill to raise the default speed limit to 75 on Interstate highways and 65 on state highways, unless changed by ORS.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3094 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3094)

There's also a bill that prescribes a speed limit of 75 on the part of I-84 between The Dalles and Idaho, 70 on "State Highway" 95 and portions of "State Highway" 20 and "State Highway" 97.  This bill enacts these changes, and does not appear to allow ORS to change the speed limits.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3402 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3402)

Another bill would raise the default speed limit on Interstates to 70 and 60 for larger vehicles.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/SB459 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/SB459)

These bills all conflict.  If any increases are passed, it will either be one of them, but not the others, or one will be amended to include provisions of others.

Quote from: cl94 on March 03, 2015, 09:44:16 PM
There was stuff proposing for New York to go from 65 to 75 in rural areas in late 2013, but I haven't seen anything about it in over a year

If that ever occurs in the Socialist State of New York, I will find it very hard to believe.  Classic case of a "one house" bill of upstate vs. downstate. 

Quote from: xcellntbuy on March 04, 2015, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: cl94 on March 03, 2015, 09:44:16 PM
There was stuff proposing for New York to go from 65 to 75 in rural areas in late 2013, but I haven't seen anything about it in over a year

If that ever occurs in the Socialist State of New York, I will find it very hard to believe.  Classic case of a "one house" bill of upstate vs. downstate.

It was actually proposed by someone from The Bronx. Part of it was to raise parkway speed limits above 55 to get everything closer to the 85th percentile speed. In most of the state (outside of Western New York), traffic typically moves at 75 or higher.

Quote from: gonealookin on March 03, 2015, 10:01:13 PM
An 85 bill came up in the last Nevada legislature.  It passed in the Senate and passed an Assembly committee but then died without an Assembly floor vote.  I never saw a good explanation, but reading between the lines it sounded like the governor didn't want to sign it because he's the one who gets blamed the first time some kids die.  He's still the governor and it seems unlikely that a GOP legislature would override a GOP governor's veto, but I'm no political insider and we'll see if the dynamic has changed in two years.

If I remember correctly, Nevada's previous proposal (2013 legislative session) was for 80, not 85.  That not passing didn't have anything to do with the governor... It just didn't get out of committee.


EDIT: After looking it up, the 2013 proposal (SB 191) was for an 85 mph speed...my mistake.

EDIT 2: The current proposal (SB 2) was actually pre-filed prior to the start of the 2015 legislative session. The bill text is substantially similar to the previous version.

Looks like the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate have approved the 70 mph bill as of today, and will likely head to the Governor for final approval.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 05, 2015, 02:00:26 PM
Looks like the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate have approved the 70 mph bill as of today, and will likely head to the Governor for final approval.

Great news! Thanks for the info.

I don't want to be too political, but this is one example of a scenario where an election can matter. There was considerably higher turnover than normal in Maryland's legislature this winter, plus there's a new governor.

Quote from: wxfree on March 04, 2015, 05:03:46 AM
In Oregon, there's a bill to raise the default speed limit to 75 on Interstate highways and 65 on state highways, unless changed by ORS.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3094 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3094)

Any hope of that going anywhere with the recently-sworn in new governor?  IIRC, her predecessor was a major obstacle to speed limit hikes in Oregon. 

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.

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Speed-limit-bill-continues-coasting-through-the-Capitol-294878021.html

Did they fail to mention AAA is in the insurance business??

Quote from: wxfree on March 04, 2015, 05:03:46 AM
In Washington, there are three bills to raise the speed limit on I-90 to 75, and one bill that would allow a speed limit of 75 on any highway or portion thereof when that speed is found to be reasonable and safe.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2181.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2181.pdf)

In Oregon, there's a bill to raise the default speed limit to 75 on Interstate highways and 65 on state highways, unless changed by ORS.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3094 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3094)

There's also a bill that prescribes a speed limit of 75 on the part of I-84 between The Dalles and Idaho, 70 on "State Highway" 95 and portions of "State Highway" 20 and "State Highway" 97.  This bill enacts these changes, and does not appear to allow ORS to change the speed limits.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3402 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HB3402)

Another bill would raise the default speed limit on Interstates to 70 and 60 for larger vehicles.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/SB459 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/SB459)

These bills all conflict.  If any increases are passed, it will either be one of them, but not the others, or one will be amended to include provisions of others.

Awesome! Probably shouldn't get my hopes up though, these have come up many times, but never get anywhere. Maybe with Kitzhaber out of office, maybe it has a better chance? But it's Oregon, so probably not...

Quote from: doorknob60 on March 08, 2015, 04:49:08 AM

Quote from: wxfree on March 04, 2015, 05:03:46 AM
clipped

Awesome! Probably shouldn't get my hopes up though, these have come up many times, but never get anywhere. Maybe with Kitzhaber out of office, maybe it has a better chance? But it's Oregon, so probably not...

I know Oregon is constantly proposing/denying an increased speed limit, but I don't think it's too common in Washington? Then again, I don't watch house bills very often.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 08, 2015, 10:27:16 PM

Quote from: doorknob60 on March 08, 2015, 04:49:08 AM

Quote from: wxfree on March 04, 2015, 05:03:46 AM
clipped

Awesome! Probably shouldn't get my hopes up though, these have come up many times, but never get anywhere. Maybe with Kitzhaber out of office, maybe it has a better chance? But it's Oregon, so probably not...

I know Oregon is constantly proposing/denying an increased speed limit, but I don't think it's too common in Washington? Then again, I don't watch house bills very often.

Yeah, I haven't paid much attention to Washington I admit, because they don't get on my nerves as much. They don't discriminate between Interstates and US/state routes, for one. US-395 from Pasco to Ritzville is 70 MPH just like the interstates. In Oregon, it'd be a painful 55. Plus they usually post at least 60 (and sometimes 65) on the 2 laners, and of course 70 instead of 65 on the interstates. Not perfect, but so much better than Oregon.

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).

Quote from: jakeroot on March 10, 2015, 03:52:47 AM
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.

Quote from: corco on March 05, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:58:18 PM

Quote from: corco on March 05, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
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.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 10, 2015, 08:07:31 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:58:18 PM

Quote from: corco on March 05, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:58:18 PM

Quote from: corco on March 05, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
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.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 10, 2015, 08:07:31 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:58:18 PM

Quote from: corco on March 05, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
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!

Aaand now add SD to the list of states considering higher speed limits.
link (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/state-may-raise-interstate-speed-limit-to-mph/article_cb5d3b10-0d50-5b51-b1f8-c32bfe791d3f.html)
This blindsided all of us out here.

Quote from: SD Mapman on March 10, 2015, 08:39:02 PM
Aaand now add SD to the list of states considering higher speed limits.
link (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/state-may-raise-interstate-speed-limit-to-mph/article_cb5d3b10-0d50-5b51-b1f8-c32bfe791d3f.html)
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.

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.

Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2015, 08:25:31 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:58:18 PM

Quote from: corco on March 05, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
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?

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 (http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/HB0603.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.

QuoteWhat'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.

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!   :-D

Quote from: countysigns on March 16, 2015, 04:47:04 PM
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!   :-D

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

The Nevada bill, SB 2 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/1139/Overview), 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 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/bill-change-nevada-s-speed-limit-80-mph-clears-committee) on March 17 and now goes to the full Senate for a floor vote.

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/

Quote from: corco on March 18, 2015, 07:42:23 PM
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 (http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/article_5dd1449e-cd85-11e4-8c7e-d72c951d1768.html)

Quote from: SD Mapman on March 19, 2015, 09:35:12 AM
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 (http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/article_5dd1449e-cd85-11e4-8c7e-d72c951d1768.html)

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.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 19, 2015, 11:59:43 AM
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.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 09:17:11 PM
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!

Quote from: oscar on March 19, 2015, 12:18:48 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 19, 2015, 11:59:43 AM
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.

Quote from: corco on March 19, 2015, 01:25:46 PM

Quote from: oscar on March 19, 2015, 12:18:48 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 19, 2015, 11:59:43 AM
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:

Quote32-25-1.1.   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.

Quote32-25-4.   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.

Quote32-25-7.   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:

Quote32-25-7.1.   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.

Quote from: oscar on March 19, 2015, 12:18:48 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: corco on March 21, 2015, 01:41:41 AMI'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.

Quote from: corco on March 21, 2015, 01:41:41 AM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2015, 07:06:24 PM

Quote from: corco on March 21, 2015, 01:41:41 AM
I'm actually not too big a fan of this- MDT's powers to change speed limits at will would expand greatly under this bill, and it makes me worried that the highway patrol's objective to have 65 car/65 truck speed limits on all two lane roads is a little bit closer to fruition. The highway patrol actually supports this bill despite the speed limit increase to 80- there's a reason for that.

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio's bid for 75 mph has been shelved

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

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

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 26, 2015, 01:29:47 PM
Looks like the Montana Senate has advanced a modified version of the bill:
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/03/25/senate-advances-80-mph-highway-speed-limit-proposal/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-wi-xgr-speed-limit-20150402-story.html)

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

Quote from: cl94 on April 02, 2015, 11:02:05 PM
And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here  :-/

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

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2015, 11:16:56 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 02, 2015, 11:02:05 PM
And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here  :-/

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

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

Quote from: Zeffy on April 02, 2015, 11:39:52 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2015, 11:16:56 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 02, 2015, 11:02:05 PM
And then we have New York, who's still doing nothing. Gotta love living here  :-/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2015, 11:16:56 PM"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2015, 09:55:23 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2015, 11:16:56 PM"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

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

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
Looks like South Dakota is now actually considering lowering some stretches of highways back to 75 mph due to some safety concerns:
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/not-so-fast-transportation-officials-checking-south-dakota-s-mph/article_b1c61b0b-c756-57c5-b051-9ae49f5302f1.html

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

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

Quote from: jakeroot on April 09, 2015, 06:57:51 PM
Washington State's increase to 75 MPH passed the senate 41 to 7. Unless I'm mistaken, since both the house and senate passed the bill, it now goes to the Governor for his signature.

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

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2015, 11:18:55 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

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

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

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

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on April 11, 2015, 07:10:35 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2015, 11:18:55 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
That is the main problem with a blanket approach to speed limits; other states who have raised their speed limits to 80 mph have been doing so on a case-by-case basis where a traffic study deems the speed is appropriate for a particular stretch of highway.

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

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

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

Rick

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


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

Quote from: TEG24601 on April 12, 2015, 02:11:59 PM
However, WSDOT isn't much better

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

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2015, 03:24:33 PM

Quote from: TEG24601 on April 12, 2015, 02:11:59 PM
However, WSDOT isn't much better

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

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

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

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

Rick 

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 10, 2015, 08:44:23 PMDon't forget the NMSL repeal came about only after both houses of Congress changed hands in 1994 (well, after the 1994 election).

Well aware of such. 

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

Post remnants of above-sign along I-95 northbound just north of PA 452/Exit 2 (http://goo.gl/maps/n3ozs)

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2015, 08:57:01 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 10, 2015, 08:44:23 PMDon't forget the NMSL repeal came about only after both houses of Congress changed hands in 1994 (well, after the 1994 election).

Well aware of such. 

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

Post remnants of above-sign along I-95 northbound just north of PA 452/Exit 2 (http://goo.gl/maps/n3ozs)

And now PA has areas of 70 MPH, while I-95 is still stuck at 55 for some reason

Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2015, 01:14:20 PMAnd now PA has areas of 70 MPH, while I-95 is still stuck at 55 for some reason

A couple things:

1.  You're preaching to the choir on this one.

2.  PA re-established the 65 mph limit just before (within months) the NSL was fully repealed.  During the 1994 campaign for governor, every candidate but one (Lynn Yeakel) supported increasing the rural Interstate speed limit to 65; so the push for the latter predated the federal push for the former.  As a result, only rural Interstates got the higher 65 mph limit initially; with I-95 going through Philly plus Delaware & Buck Counties, PennDOT did not consider their sections of I-95 to be rural Interstates (as defined by the Feds.).

Later on, some rural non-Interstate highways (example: the freeway section of US 222 between Reading & Lancaster) received the higher 65 mph limit as well; but, to date, no other highway/expressway within the southeastern 5 counties (Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomerey, Chester & Bucks Counties) ever got the higher limit except for the PA Turnpike (I-276) and the lower part of the Northeast Extension (I-476).

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2015, 02:03:05 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2015, 01:14:20 PMAnd now PA has areas of 70 MPH, while I-95 is still stuck at 55 for some reason

A couple things:

1.  You're preaching to the choir on this one.

2.  PA re-established the 65 mph limit just before (within months) the NSL was fully repealed.  During the 1994 campaign for governor, every candidate but one (Lynn Yeakel) supported increasing the rural Interstate speed limit to 65; so the push for the latter predated the federal push for the former.  As a result, only rural Interstates got the higher 65 mph limit initially; with I-95 going through Philly plus Delaware & Buck Counties, PennDOT did not consider their sections of I-95 to be rural Interstates (as defined by the Feds.).

Later on, some rural non-Interstate highways (example: the freeway section of US 222 between Reading & Lancaster) received the higher 65 mph limit as well; but, to date, no other highway/expressway within the southeastern 5 counties (Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomerey, Chester & Bucks Counties) ever got the higher limit except for the PA Turnpike (I-276) and the lower part of the Northeast Extension (I-476).

But there was no NSL when 70 MPH was approved

Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2015, 03:00:06 PMBut there was no NSL when 70 MPH was approved

That is correct and has nothing to do with PA's (& other northeastern states') dragging their feet when 65 was first allowed again for certain highways that was recently commented on in this thread.

The recent (almost a year old now) bump-up to 70 mph was last-minute add-on to Act 89 (which raises the gas tax for additional transportation funding) that then-Gov. Corbett signed into law; and, for the time being, only applies to erected on certain highways (portions of I-80, the PA Turnpike (I-76) & I-380) on an experimental/trial basis.  Plans/decisions to further expand the higher limit to other highway segments would be later subject to review.  Such The 70 mph limit was viewed as throwing taxpayers a bone for raising their gas taxes.

Personal speculation: had Wolf been governor a year ago; those roads would've never seen a 70 mph limit.

Regarding I-95, it's pretty substandard, including the fact that it has NO acceleration lanes to speak of.  That probably factors into it being 55.

I don't believe PA's 70 law legislatively defines what places can be 70.  PennDOT and the PTC are currently testing 70, which is why it's limited right now, and may be posting more 70 zones later this year.

http://www.thecourierexpress.com/news/article_2fe29238-8332-11e4-9fe1-03ac28fc9455.html

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 10, 2015, 08:44:23 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2015, 09:55:23 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2015, 11:16:56 PM"Here" being almost all of the Northeast?  Don't expect a lot of movement on these numbers up here.  You likely don't remember how begrudgingly this region even adopted 65 mph in the 1990s.

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

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

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

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

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

CT had to be dragged in kicking and screaming to the 65 party in 1998. You knew you were hitting the border when you saw Reduced Speed Ahead signs. The Land of Steady Habits is last to conform to anything.  It took us till 2 years ago to get Sunday liquor sales and stores still can't sell after 9pm

Maryland used to have black-on-yellow "STILL!" signs above their "Speed Limit 55" signs when you crossed the state line from Virginia during the Schaefer Administration. They were removed shortly after he left office when they finally allowed 65 (he had consistently opposed 65). I always thought the "STILL!" signs were stupid because the Beltway, which is where I saw them all the time, wasn't eligible for a 65-mph limit back then anyway due to the NMSL's "rural" limitation.

Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 07:28:38 PM
Regarding I-95, it's pretty substandard, including the fact that it has NO acceleration lanes to speak of.  That probably factors into it being 55.

Yes & no.  While there are some substandard sections (mainly older segments through Northeast Philly & Chester, the former is presently being reconstructed); there are other sections that are not substandard (example: the final piece by the airport that was opened in 1985 and the section between I-676 and I-76).

That said and if PA was willing; most of I-95 outside of Philly could handle a 65 limit and the city portion could handle a 60 mph limit.

Again, changing the speed limit on I-95 wasn't even on PennDOT's radar when rural Interstates were allowed to go up to 65 because PA's original plan predated the Feds completely abolishing the NSL.

Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 07:28:38 PM
I don't believe PA's 70 law legislatively defines what places can be 70.  PennDOT and the PTC are currently testing 70, which is why it's limited right now, and may be posting more 70 zones later this year.

http://www.thecourierexpress.com/news/article_2fe29238-8332-11e4-9fe1-03ac28fc9455.html

Trust me, not one expressway segment in the 5 southeastern (Greater Philadelphia) counties will ever see a 70 mph limit.

Quote from: corco on April 10, 2015, 11:39:03 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
Looks like South Dakota is now actually considering lowering some stretches of highways back to 75 mph due to some safety concerns:
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/not-so-fast-transportation-officials-checking-south-dakota-s-mph/article_b1c61b0b-c756-57c5-b051-9ae49f5302f1.html

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

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

I'm betting 90 from WY to Rapid will go back down to 75. Not sure about East River though.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 14, 2015, 10:09:27 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 07:28:38 PM
Regarding I-95, it's pretty substandard, including the fact that it has NO acceleration lanes to speak of.  That probably factors into it being 55.

Yes & no.  While there are some substandard sections (mainly older segments through Northeast Philly & Chester, the former is presently being reconstructed); there are other sections that are not substandard (example: the final piece by the airport that was opened in 1985 and the section between I-676 and I-76).

I just drove a friend to the airport this morning.  What a disaster the pavement is in that area now!  And before the winter I thought it was in good shape.  I mean, I know we have potholes around, but the airport exit from 95 South was a mile long patchjob!

I never found the accel lanes to be horrendously bad on 95 (at least the areas that aren't under construction), and in some cases they're downright decent.  No doubt some are short, but compared to some highways in PA, they're not bad.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2015, 11:02:42 AMI just drove a friend to the airport this morning.  What a disaster the pavement is in that area now!  And before the winter I thought it was in good shape.  I mean, I know we have potholes around, but the airport exit from 95 South was a mile long patchjob!

Following last year's (early 2014) winter snowstorms; much of the pavement along I-95 in and around the airport interchange itself was so bad in terms of potholes that the road (at least the inner mainline lanes) had to be completely resurfaced.

I was referring to I-95 north of Philly; in other words, the portion that would actually be 65 in other northeastern states.  South of Philly, it's pretty suburban and would be 55 in most parts of NY as well.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 14, 2015, 10:09:27 AM

Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 07:28:38 PM
I don't believe PA's 70 law legislatively defines what places can be 70.  PennDOT and the PTC are currently testing 70, which is why it's limited right now, and may be posting more 70 zones later this year.

http://www.thecourierexpress.com/news/article_2fe29238-8332-11e4-9fe1-03ac28fc9455.html

Trust me, not one expressway segment in the 5 southeastern (Greater Philadelphia) counties will ever see a 70 mph limit.

The reason for my comment was because your earlier post made it sound like 70 was legislatively defined to apply only to the sections where it's 70 now (italics in quote below are mine).

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2015, 04:02:02 PM
The recent (almost a year old now) bump-up to 70 mph was last-minute add-on to Act 89 (which raises the gas tax for additional transportation funding) that then-Gov. Corbett signed into law; and only applies to certain highways (portions of I-80, the PA Turnpike (I-76) & I-380).  Such was viewed as throwing taxpayers a bone for raising their gas taxes.

Quote from: vdeane on April 14, 2015, 03:32:28 PM
I was referring to I-95 north of Philly; in other words, the portion that would actually be 65 in other northeastern states.

If you're referring to the stretch in Bucks County, much of which will be redesignated as I-395 once the new I-95/PA Turnpike ramps are constructed; most of it south of the Scudder Falls Bridge & interchange 51A-B was constructed during the late 1960s to the Interstate standards that existed at that time.  So a 65 limit for that stretch, sans the bridge, would not be an issue IMHO.  Some old-timers that either lived and/or drove in the area can shed some light towards what highways in Greater Philly (including that stretch of I-95) had 60 or 65 mph speed limits Pre-NSL.

Quote from: vdeane on April 14, 2015, 03:32:28 PMSouth of Philly, it's pretty suburban

Except for the City of Chester; I-95 runs right through it between I-476 & US 322 for about 3 to 4 miles.

Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 07:28:38 PMThe reason for my comment was because your earlier post made it sound like 70 was legislatively defined to apply only to the sections where it's 70 now.

I have since modifed my earlier post; but my earlier points regarding 70 mph limits coming to Greater Philadelphia or being added to more roadways still stand.

The only way I see the latter happening is if the State Legislature (which is actually more conservative & Republican than it was under Corbett) has enough push & votes to overcome a veto from Gov. Wolf.  Personally, I just don't see Gov. Wolf (who has a different transportation secretary) moving on his own to expand the 70 mph limit to other highways.

To update on the Montana senate bill, it has now made it out of house committee to the floor. (http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/SB0375.pdf)

A few changes were made to neuter the bill in a way that I doubt the highway patrol likes:

- 80 MPH for cars is still the new rural interstate speed limit

- The speed at which speeding tickets get reported to insurance went from 85 as proposed in the original bill to 90

- The speeding fine for 1-10 over on rural interstates is $40 (when it came to committee, 1-5 was $40 and 5-10 was like $100). Essentially, 89 MPH in the 80 would be a $40 ticket that isn't allowed to be reported to insurance, the way it's written now. That's consistent with the situation on the road today (84 in a 75 is a $20 ticket), which is good, but I think the highway patrol wanted to see stiffer fines at those higher speeds.

- The statutorily-defined areas where the speed limit can remain at 75 were removed (the proposed bill had said things like I-90 from Idaho to Missoula could remain 75 at MDT's discretion), but it appears to now give MDT discretion across the whole state to establish temporary 75 zones:

QuotePENDING completion of an engineering and traffic investigation as provided for in subsection (1), the commission may temporarily set a speed limit of not less than 75 miles an hour on a segment of the federal-aid interstate highway system that it reasonably believes is not suitable for the limit established in 61-8-303(1)(a).

Oddly, when SB 375 was originally proposed, one of the primary ideas was to narrow the car/truck split speed limits. As the bill is now, truck speeds would remain at 65, so it'd be 80 car/65 truck on interstates and 70 car/60 truck on other rural highways.

Looks like Governor Jay Inslee of Washington has killed the 75 mph bill:
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2015/04/22/governor-jay-inslee-speed-limit-bill/26190949/

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 23, 2015, 03:04:53 PM
Looks like Governor Jay Inslee of Washington has killed the 75 mph bill:
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2015/04/22/governor-jay-inslee-speed-limit-bill/26190949/

Only partially. He waved the increased limit, but allocated funds to study where speed limits could be increased past 70. In the long run, this is probably a good idea, so the next time a bill comes around, a study exists to back the bill up.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2015, 03:39:58 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 23, 2015, 03:04:53 PM
Looks like Governor Jay Inslee of Washington has killed the 75 mph bill:
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2015/04/22/governor-jay-inslee-speed-limit-bill/26190949/

Only partially. He waved the increased limit, but allocated funds to study where speed limits could be increased past 70. In the long run, this is probably a good idea, so the next time a bill comes around, a study exists to back the bill up.

Gotta spend that study money to keep the bureaucrats happy...LOL!  Jeez gov, don't you realize traffic regulates itself?  Just try to go 75 on a crowded freeway.  If it is empty at 3 AM, who cares?

Rick

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

If a state arbitrarily raises a speed limit without cause, it's incredibly easy for a committee to form and knock it back down. Media outlets and overly-protective citizens love to attack high speed limits -- give them something to chew on.

As much as I was looking forward to 75, I'm not in distress. The study doesn't put a cap on a speed limit that a study might find acceptable, so in theory, WSDOT could find portions of interstates or other freeways capable of an 80 mph speed limit. Given that, the state legislature could put forward a bill next year to increase the maximum allowable speed limit to something higher than 75 (since 75 is such a small step... 80 or bust!)

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

The state can't be held negligent for its legislature passing a law to raise a speed limit and then carrying out that law (unless it is unconstitutional), because the legislature theoretically represents the will of the people. It could only be negligent if, say, a law passed reducing the speed limit to 65 and then the state didn't change the signs to lower the speed limit and somehow a bunch of people died in a way clearly related to that failure by the state, and even that might be pushing it.

I drove I-5 from Portland up to Seattle yesterday- now that it is six lanes wide for most of the trek, the traffic really isn't bad and the highway could easily support a higher speed limit. I'd also add that since I first started doing the Tacoma-Seattle slog 8 years ago (realizing that that stretch wouldn't be affected by this bill), cars have sped up. When I first moved to Tacoma and got a car in 2006, traffic used to move at 65 or so- push to 70 and you're in the left lanes battling for position. Yesterday I drove it at 72-75 MPH, only rarely entering one of the left two lanes. This at 6:30 PM on a weeknight, so a decent amount of traffic.

Quote from: corco on April 23, 2015, 08:04:26 PM
realizing that that stretch wouldn't be affected by this bill

Actually, that was one of the reasons Inslee shot half the bill down. It grew to include many other places beyond I-90, including I-5, US-395, and so on.

At today's hearing of Nevada's Assembly Transportation Committee, the director of Nevada DOT spoke in opposition (http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/04/23/sponsor-mph-speed-limit-cites-safety-concerns/26279633/) to the increase from 75 mph to 80 mph:

QuoteRepresentatives from the Nevada Department of Transportation, the Nevada Highway Patrol and the Washoe County Sheriff's Office opposed the bill.

"Our goal is zero fatalities and we feel that the negatives outweigh the positives when people are driving faster on our roadways,"  said Rudy Malfabon, the director of the Nevada Department of Transportation.

"While increasing the speed limit may save some time, our concern is that an increase in severe injuries and fatalities will also result,"  Malfabon said.

The legislature does not set speed limits in Nevada; NDOT does.  It certainly sets up a confrontation if the Assembly passes the bill and the governor signs it.

From above...

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM
From above...

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

When you're dealing with elected officials, you have to say something totally ridiculous but politically popular.

Welcome to democracy.

Quote from: gonealookin on April 24, 2015, 12:48:06 AM
At today's hearing of Nevada's Assembly Transportation Committee, the director of Nevada DOT spoke in opposition (http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/04/23/sponsor-mph-speed-limit-cites-safety-concerns/26279633/) to the increase from 75 mph to 80 mph:

QuoteRepresentatives from the Nevada Department of Transportation, the Nevada Highway Patrol and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office opposed the bill.

“Our goal is zero fatalities and we feel that the negatives outweigh the positives when people are driving faster on our roadways,” said Rudy Malfabon, the director of the Nevada Department of Transportation.

“While increasing the speed limit may save some time, our concern is that an increase in severe injuries and fatalities will also result,” Malfabon said.

The legislature does not set speed limits in Nevada; NDOT does.  It certainly sets up a confrontation if the Assembly passes the bill and the governor signs it.

The Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 24, 2015, 01:41:49 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM
From above...

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

When you're dealing with elected officials, you have to say something totally ridiculous but politically popular.

Welcome to democracy.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3s3MY.gif&hash=34f3f7ccc2a487eb895375726b273d57a640b1ba)

Quote from: corco on April 24, 2015, 01:44:53 AMThe Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Yup, this sort of thing is usually coordinated by policy advisors working out of the governor's office.  By the same token, a state DOT will not exercise any discretionary powers it has to increase speed limits if the governor opposes higher limits.  I suspect this is why Oregon has stayed at 65 under Kitzhaber.

Back on the first page of this thread I mentioned that

Quotean 85 bill came up in the last Nevada legislature.  It passed in the Senate and passed an Assembly committee but then died without an Assembly floor vote.  I never saw a good explanation, but reading between the lines it sounded like the governor didn't want to sign it because he's the one who gets blamed the first time some kids die.

Agreed that Mr. Malfabon is probably speaking for the governor here, so Nevada's 75 maximum will most likely not be increased during this governor's tenure.

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2015, 12:35:02 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

New York might be the same. I know that, in this state, ALL speed limits are set in law by NYSDOT and nobody else can change them. Does a lot to prevent some of the stupid speed traps.

Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2015, 12:35:02 PM

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

I believe Texas requires a study to raise any highway above 75.  Used to be for any speed above 70, but now the state has a blanket default speed limit of 75 mph.

Quote from: corco on April 23, 2015, 08:04:26 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

One of the things cited in Ohio's failure to go to 75 was the "design speed" of  the rural freeways is 70. Concern was raised that a limit higher than that would open up the state to lawsuits.

Quote from: 6a on April 24, 2015, 05:56:42 PM

Quote from: corco on April 23, 2015, 08:04:26 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

One of the things cited in Ohio's failure to go to 75 was the "design speed" of  the rural freeways is 70. Concern was raised that a limit higher than that would open up the state to lawsuits.

That's nice rhetoric, but did they elaborate on the how?

Yes, if your speed limit increase bill says "raise the speed limit pending a traffic investigation," the state would have to do so in order to raise the limit- it would be like Oregon where the DOT can but isn't required to raise the limit to 70, and therefore doesn't. But if the state conducted a reputable traffic investigation and raised the limit, that would pretty much ward off lawsuits. The only way the state would be liable is if it were required to conduct a traffic investigation prior to raising a speed limit and then either raised it without doing a traffic investigation or didn't perform one using reasonably accepted standards.

If the law says "the speed limit on rural intestates is now 75," there's just no way to hold the state liable for enforcing the laws its citizens passed, unless the law isn't constitutional. If you're the governor and you have freeways that can't be safely navigated at that speed, you lobby to have the bill amended to give your DOT the discretion (but NOT the mandate) to raise speeds as possible. If you fail at that, then you post at 75 and maybe that's dangerous from an accident standpoint but it's more legal than ignoring the new law.

There's no precedent requiring speed limits to correspond with design speeds- it's good practice, but there's thousands of exceptions to that in the country, including most of Montana (and the entire country from 73 to 95). Ive never heard of a case where a state government got in trouble for posting a legally authorized speed limit. There are cases involving local government like New rome, Ohio, but those became constitutional issues in the way they were enforced, and also violated state law. Since the feds no longer legislate speed limits, state law is supreme in regards to speed limits. (Even under NMSL, state speed limit law was supreme, but not worth the funding hit to overpost)

Quote from: corco on April 24, 2015, 06:23:44 PM

Quote from: 6a on April 24, 2015, 05:56:42 PM

Quote from: corco on April 23, 2015, 08:04:26 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

One of the things cited in Ohio's failure to go to 75 was the "design speed" of  the rural freeways is 70. Concern was raised that a limit higher than that would open up the state to lawsuits.

That's nice rhetoric, but did they elaborate on the how?

From here (http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/03/heres_why_ohio_lawmakers_scrap.html)

Quote
In addition, the Ohio Department of Transportation told lawmakers that when many Ohio highways were constructed decades ago, they were designed for traffic to travel at a maximum of 70 mph, according to ODOT spokesman Matt Bruning.

If the speed limit was raised to 75 mph, ODOT claimed, people who got into highway accidents could potentially sue the state for allowing traffic to go faster than what the roads were built to handle.

In this instance I think it's more "anyone can sue for anything" than actual science, but it does go back to Rick's question regarding whether or not a state has been sued for such a thing. No, they haven't in this case but there was a stated fear.

This might be getting off topic, but how closely is design speed related to the actual ideal safe speed? Meaning, suppose a curve has an advisory speed of 20 but everything except a fully loaded tractor trailer can handle it at 30; how is the design speed related (or is it?)

Quote from: corco on April 24, 2015, 06:23:44 PMThat's nice rhetoric, but did they elaborate on the how?

Yes, if your speed limit increase bill says "raise the speed limit pending a traffic investigation," the state would have to do so in order to raise the limit- it would be like Oregon where the DOT can but isn't required to raise the limit to 70, and therefore doesn't. But if the state conducted a reputable traffic investigation and raised the limit, that would pretty much ward off lawsuits. The only way the state would be liable is if it were required to conduct a traffic investigation prior to raising a speed limit and then either raised it without doing a traffic investigation or didn't perform one using reasonably accepted standards.

If the law says "the speed limit on rural intestates is now 75," there's just no way to hold the state liable for enforcing the laws its citizens passed, unless the law isn't constitutional. If you're the governor and you have freeways that can't be safely navigated at that speed, you lobby to have the bill amended to give your DOT the discretion (but NOT the mandate) to raise speeds as possible. If you fail at that, then you post at 75 and maybe that's dangerous from an accident standpoint but it's more legal than ignoring the new law.

There's no precedent requiring speed limits to correspond with design speeds- it's good practice, but there's thousands of exceptions to that in the country, including most of Montana (and the entire country from 73 to 95). Ive never heard of a case where a state government got in trouble for posting a legally authorized speed limit. There are cases involving local government like New Rome, Ohio, but those became constitutional issues in the way they were enforced, and also violated state law. Since the feds no longer legislate speed limits, state law is supreme in regards to speed limits. (Even under NMSL, state speed limit law was supreme, but not worth the funding hit to overpost)

Corco, your argument is essentially that the state legislature has a limited form of parliamentary sovereignty, so it cannot be held liable for negligence if it decides to increase speed limits--even to values well in excess of the design speeds for the roads involved--and there is a subsequent increase in accidents.

I don't disagree with this reasoning, but I do not think it is the whole story.  By similar reasoning you could claim that a state legislature cannot be sued for inadequately funding public schools because adequate funding is whatever state legislators, duly elected and acting on behalf of the general public, say it is.  Yet it is not at all uncommon for state legislatures to be sued for precisely this; in Kansas we have had such a lawsuit working its way through the courts for several years now.  The Kansas case hinges on a constitutional provision giving the legislature the responsibility to "suitably" fund public education.  There has been talk of removing this provision, or attempting to nullify it by passing a law saying that adequate funding is whatever the Legislature chooses to spend, but neither approach has come to fruition--one would require an amendment to be submitted to the voters while the other is constitutionally suspect and would likely be struck down by the courts.

It is likely that some state constitutions have a provision charging the legislature to direct "responsible" management of the highway system that could be used as a hook for a lawsuit against increased speed limits.

This issue is of course separate from what occurs if a state DOT improperly exercises discretionary powers it has been given to increase speed limits.  State legislatures pass laws which sharply limit the circumstances under which a state DOT can sue and be sued; this is the residue of sovereign immunity and its reach varies from state to state.  In principle any attempt to shield a public agency from lawsuits is open to challenge under the constitutional provision that there shall be no taking without compensation, but I am not aware that court precedent is well developed in this regard.  It is conceivable that a state DOT in one state could be found negligent for increasing the speed limit on a given road without carrying out a traffic engineering study, while the DOT in a neighboring state, exercising an identical discretionary power to increase the speed limit and also not performing a traffic engineering study, would not be found negligent.

The bottom line is that I have no confidence that neither the legislative nor the administrative aspects of changing speed limits are justiciable.

Quote from: 6a on April 24, 2015, 10:16:28 PMThis might be getting off topic, but how closely is design speed related to the actual ideal safe speed? Meaning, suppose a curve has an advisory speed of 20 but everything except a fully loaded tractor trailer can handle it at 30; how is the design speed related (or is it?)

This is an extremely controversial question and there is no simple answer.  One traditional definition of design speed is that it is the highest speed the ordinary driver will choose on a given road when the conditions are so favorable that only the geometric characteristics of the road govern speed choice.  The one that is generally accepted nowadays is that design speed is simply an uniform speed that is used to choose geometric design elements (horizontal and vertical curvature, superelevation, provision of curbs or shoulders, side slope steepness, clear zone width, guardrail length and terminal treatments, etc.) that are functionally consistent with each other.

For a given design speed, the specific elements associated with that speed will vary from one jurisdiction to another.  For example, most US states have used a maximum horizontal curvature of 3° (which corresponds to a curve radius of 1,910 ft) for a 70 MPH design speed, while Britain used a maximum horizontal curvature of 2° (curve radius of 2,865 ft) for the same design speed.

Moreover, in a given jurisdiction the elements will vary with the ruling edition of the principal design reference.  In the US this is now the AASHTO Green Book and has been since the mid-1980's, but in the heyday of Interstate construction in the 1960's it was the AASHO Blue Book for rural roads and AASHO Red Book for urban arterials, which themselves succeeded a series of pamphlet-sized Policies on Geometric Design that were published beginning in 1940 and were updated through 1954.  The stylized fact is that standards changed much more between the earlier editions than between the later ones, with the US ones essentially stabilizing at close to their current values around 1965.  However, step changes are still possible in more recent editions of the Green Book, such as the major change in vertical curvature standards (resulting from abolition of the "dead dog in road" criterion) in the 2004 edition.

I-235 in Wichita is one example of how obsolescent standards can play out in practice.  Most of it was opened to traffic around 1961, built to a design speed of (if memory serves) 60 MPH.  I don't know what the original speed limit was, but during the NMSL it was posted at 55 and never went to 65 because it was considered urban in location.  When the NMSL was abolished, the speed limit did go up to 65.  The freeway-to-freeway interchange at Kellogg is due for conversion from a cloverleaf to a stack/turban hybrid, and as part of that macro project, a curve about half a mile to the north will have to be relocated and regraded since it is too sharp to meet current standards even for a 55 MPH design speed.  In the dry, it can be taken at speeds of up to 75 MPH (and perhaps even more) without seriously challenging tire adhesion.

Although it seems compelling to argue that the speed limit should never be higher than the design speed because the latter is the maximum speed for which the road has been designed, there are two main problems with this position.  First, inferring the design speed for a length of road with a given set of geometric characteristics is a matter not just of choosing a manual, but also the edition of that manual.  It can border on intellectual dishonesty to say that the design speed that should govern choice of speed limit is just whatever was printed on the title sheet of the construction plans set way back when the road was originally built.  Second, design speed by itself is just a number, and does not indicate how much slack there is in the design, which is the crucial factor in choosing a higher limit and deciding what parts of a road should be exempted from that increase.  A road built to a 70 MPH design speed can have lengths with very easy curvature followed by other lengths with sharp curves, with both the easy and sharp curves meeting the criteria for 70 while the sharp curves merit some special treatment (such as advisory speed signing or a reduced limit) if the speed limit is later increased to 80 or even 85.  (Neither example is abstract.  SH 130 in Texas has a title-sheet design speed of 70 but the limit throughout is now 85, while I think Idaho should have exempted the length of I-84 around the Sweetzer Road exit from the 80 limit.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2015, 10:39:19 PM
Corco, your argument is essentially that the state legislature has a limited form of parliamentary sovereignty, so it cannot be held liable for negligence if it decides to increase speed limits--even to values well in excess of the design speeds for the roads involved--and there is a subsequent increase in accidents.

I don't disagree with this reasoning, but I do not think it is the whole story.  By similar reasoning you could claim that a state legislature cannot be sued for inadequately funding public schools because adequate funding is whatever state legislators, duly elected and acting on behalf of the general public, say it is.  Yet it is not at all uncommon for state legislatures to be sued for precisely this; in Kansas we have had such a lawsuit working its way through the courts for several years now.  The Kansas case hinges on a constitutional provision giving the legislature the responsibility to "suitably" fund public education.  There has been talk of removing this provision, or attempting to nullify it by passing a law saying that adequate funding is whatever the Legislature chooses to spend, but neither approach has come to fruition--one would require an amendment to be submitted to the voters while the other is constitutionally suspect and would likely be struck down by the courts.

It is likely that some state constitutions have a provision charging the legislature to direct "responsible" management of the highway system that could be used as a hook for a lawsuit against increased speed limits.

That's really the key point. Unless there is a state constitutional provision that at least implicitly restricts the legislature's ability to enact statutes regulating speed limits, or to modify what is ordinarily the common law of torts (including liability for negligence), the legislature is free to override common law to allow higher speed limits. That kind of modification of tort liability, rather than some kind of legislative immunity, is probably how a statutory speed limit increase would avoid the risk of lawsuits.

Of course, if speed limits are subject to discretionary decisions by a state DOT (especially if the DOT has to take some action to increase a speed limit, rather than refrain from taking action to set a limit lower than a statutory default), then those decisions could be challenged. And given how some courts have been, uh, creative in interpreting state constitutions, I'd hesitate to just do a quick read of Montana's or any other state's constitutions to conclude that there's no limit on legislative control of speed limits, or modification of tort liability. 

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2015, 01:56:15 AM

Quote from: corco on April 24, 2015, 01:44:53 AMThe Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Yup, this sort of thing is usually coordinated by policy advisors working out of the governor's office.  By the same token, a state DOT will not exercise any discretionary powers it has to increase speed limits if the governor opposes higher limits.  I suspect this is why Oregon has stayed at 65 under Kitzhaber.

Actually, the Oregon State Police supported 2001 SB 564, sponsored by Sen. Lee Beyer (D-Springfield), which would have raised Oregon's interstate speed limits to 75mph, and established a 65mph statutory limit for other highways.  Curiously, shortly after that bill came into being, Kitzhaber decided to appoint Beyer to be a utility commissioner, which took him out of the Senate (he's since returned).  ODOT, however, was very much under Kitzhaber's control, and they've come out against the current proposals.  The neutered bill that allowed ODOT the ability to post 70mph limits actually went through during Kulongoski's time, and the current ODOT head (Matthew Garrett) is a Kulongoski appointee that Kitzhaber kept (and so far, Kate Brown's shown no inclination toward replacing him).

I think the only way we'd actually get the speed limit raised is with a ballot initiative that sticks it to ODOT and mandates an increase.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2015, 11:25:31 PM

Quote from: 6a on April 24, 2015, 10:16:28 PMThis might be getting off topic, but how closely is design speed related to the actual ideal safe speed? Meaning, suppose a curve has an advisory speed of 20 but everything except a fully loaded tractor trailer can handle it at 30; how is the design speed related (or is it?)

This is an extremely controversial question and there is no simple answer.  One traditional definition of design speed is that it is the highest speed the ordinary driver will choose on a given road when the conditions are so favorable that only the geometric characteristics of the road govern speed choice.  The one that is generally accepted nowadays is that design speed is simply an uniform speed that is used to choose geometric design elements (horizontal and vertical curvature, superelevation, provision of curbs or shoulders, side slope steepness, clear zone width, guardrail length and terminal treatments, etc.) that are functionally consistent with each other.

The latter is what I had in my head. It does seem silly, other factors notwithstanding, for a room full of engineers to say "hmm, yes, let's make the speed limit 70."

Quote
For a given design speed, the specific elements associated with that speed will vary from one jurisdiction to another.  For example, most US states have used a maximum horizontal curvature of 3° (which corresponds to a curve radius of 1,910 ft) for a 70 MPH design speed, while Britain used a maximum horizontal curvature of 2° (curve radius of 2,865 ft) for the same design speed.

Moreover, in a given jurisdiction the elements will vary with the ruling edition of the principal design reference.  In the US this is now the AASHTO Green Book and has been since the mid-1980's, but in the heyday of Interstate construction in the 1960's it was the AASHO Blue Book for rural roads and AASHO Red Book for urban arterials, which themselves succeeded a series of pamphlet-sized Policies on Geometric Design that were published beginning in 1940 and were updated through 1954.  The stylized fact is that standards changed much more between the earlier editions than between the later ones, with the US ones essentially stabilizing at close to their current values around 1965.  However, step changes are still possible in more recent editions of the Green Book, such as the major change in vertical curvature standards (resulting from abolition of the "dead dog in road" criterion) in the 2004 edition.

Thanks for the additional info. The curve design part is interesting given the size of cars in the 1960s. One would think a car today could handle the same curve deemed perfectly safe then at a greater speed. Can't necessarily same about a driver today, but still...

Quote
Although it seems compelling to argue that the speed limit should never be higher than the design speed because the latter is the maximum speed for which the road has been designed, there are two main problems with this position.  First, inferring the design speed for a length of road with a given set of geometric characteristics is a matter not just of choosing a manual, but also the edition of that manual.  It can border on intellectual dishonesty to say that the design speed that should govern choice of speed limit is just whatever was printed on the title sheet of the construction plans set way back when the road was originally built. 

Looking over Ohio, who was quick to fall back on the design speed argument,   I'm having trouble identifying a current 70 zone that has a geometry limiting the extra five mph. I-77 was my first thought, given its hilly nature, but even there I can't find enough areas to say it should set the policy for, say, I-70 between Dayton and Indiana.

Quote
Second, design speed by itself is just a number, and does not indicate how much slack there is in the design, which is the crucial factor in choosing a higher limit and deciding what parts of a road should be exempted from that increase.  A road built to a 70 MPH design speed can have lengths with very easy curvature followed by other lengths with sharp curves, with both the easy and sharp curves meeting the criteria for 70 while the sharp curves merit some special treatment (such as advisory speed signing or a reduced limit) if the speed limit is later increased to 80 or even 85.  (Neither example is abstract.  SH 130 in Texas has a title-sheet design speed of 70 but the limit throughout is now 85, while I think Idaho should have exempted the length of I-84 around the Sweetzer Road exit from the 80 limit.)

I know exactly what you mean. I-70 immediately east of downtown Columbus has a curve that had a 55 advisory speed when the limit was 65. Trucks kept rolling down the embankment after losing traction on a bumpy bridge joint and hitting a substandard guardrail. They lowered the speed limit to 55, fixed the joint and built a concrete barrier. However, he speed limit is still 55 but there is no more advisory sign, just a warning of a curve. Again, thanks for the info.

No disagreement that agency heads tend to espouse the governor's position on things.  The current NYSDOT commissioner is actually stepping down because she had an argument with Cuomo over the snow removal in Buffalo.

Quote from: cl94 on April 24, 2015, 12:37:28 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2015, 12:35:02 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on April 23, 2015, 06:53:36 PM

Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2015, 06:26:21 PM
It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

New York might be the same. I know that, in this state, ALL speed limits are set in law by NYSDOT and nobody else can change them. Does a lot to prevent some of the stupid speed traps.

There's actually a reference route that a municipality wants to take over with one of the reasons they want it being a desire to reduce the speed limit from 40 to 30.  Of course, NYSDOT is OK with the idea of spending less on maintenance, so no friction there, but neither party wants to maintain the bridge on the road so it's been in limbo for a while.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM
From above...

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

All this "Vision Zero" crap is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  Of course, a lot of it is just a thin veneer over a desire to rake in the bucks off enforcement.  Nevada's Chief Supreme Court Justice did recently say that they need to be writing more traffic tickets to cover Justice Dept. salaries [source] (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4671.asp), and I suspect this may have something to do with the holdup with the 80mph bill.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM
From above...

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

---

Quote from: gonealookin on April 24, 2015, 02:10:34 AM
Back on the first page of this thread I mentioned that

Quotean 85 bill came up in the last Nevada legislature.  It passed in the Senate and passed an Assembly committee but then died without an Assembly floor vote.  I never saw a good explanation, but reading between the lines it sounded like the governor didn't want to sign it because he's the one who gets blamed the first time some kids die.

Agreed that Mr. Malfabon is probably speaking for the governor here, so Nevada's 75 maximum will most likely not be increased during this governor's tenure.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 24, 2015, 01:56:15 AM

Quote from: corco on April 24, 2015, 01:44:53 AMThe Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Yup, this sort of thing is usually coordinated by policy advisors working out of the governor's office.  By the same token, a state DOT will not exercise any discretionary powers it has to increase speed limits if the governor opposes higher limits.  I suspect this is why Oregon has stayed at 65 under Kitzhaber.

I haven't heard Governor Sandoval's position on Nevada's higher speed limit bill one way or the other. It is worth noting that the Governor, by virtue of his position and SOPs, sits on the NDOT board of directors. I haven't looked in meeting minutes to see whether the bill has been discussed.

It was also mentioned previously that the bill as presented and amended just increases the allowable maximum speed limit in state law. There are no state laws prescribing speed limits on certain stretches of highway, so NDOT is free to not post any higher speed limits even if the bill passes the legislature and if the Governor were to sign it.

I would imagine that any suit seeking to prove a state liable for their speed limit would run into the problem that a driver has their own discretion in setting a speed. The Texas 85 mph speed is a cap, not a mandate; a driver that feels unsafe at 85 can always drive slower. Now, if that was a minimum speed limit, there would be an argument. 

Quote from: roadfro on April 26, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM
From above...

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

Setting near-unobtainable goals goes hand in hand with failure to reach said goals. I'd rather states cut fatalities by, say 3 to 4% each year instead of 100%. The goal of these fatality reductions really is so a state can look good on paper (heartless, sure, but true), and states will look better on paper if they consistently meet goals. A long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities by 2100 (or so) is fine (that might even be the point of "vision zero") but, because most of us will be dead by then, why not set achievable goals in the interim?

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
I would imagine that any suit seeking to prove a state liable for their speed limit would run into the problem that a driver has their own discretion in setting a speed. The Texas 85 mph speed is a cap, not a mandate; a driver that feels unsafe at 85 can always drive slower. Now, if that was a minimum speed limit, there would be an argument.

At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 01:27:36 PM
At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

Quote from: oscar on April 27, 2015, 01:53:39 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 01:27:36 PM
At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 02:23:06 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 27, 2015, 01:53:39 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 01:27:36 PM
At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

Indeed. Though a bigger issue is at what point police write speeding tickets, since that general vagueness is how Montana lost their unrestricted speed limit in the first place. Theoretically, police shouldn't write tickets for speeding at all, but that's a huge fish to tackle (and one I have no clue how to tackle).

Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2015, 02:31:57 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 02:23:06 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 27, 2015, 01:53:39 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 01:27:36 PM
At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

Indeed. Though a bigger issue is at what point police write speeding tickets, since that general vagueness is how Montana lost their unrestricted speed limit in the first place. Theoretically, police shouldn't write tickets for speeding at all, but that's a huge fish to tackle (and one I have no clue how to tackle).

How many speeding tickets do they even write on the fast sections? It's not like people will go as much above there as they do in a 65 zone.

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 02:44:31 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2015, 02:31:57 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 02:23:06 PM

Quote from: oscar on April 27, 2015, 01:53:39 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 27, 2015, 01:27:36 PM
At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

Indeed. Though a bigger issue is at what point police write speeding tickets, since that general vagueness is how Montana lost their unrestricted speed limit in the first place. Theoretically, police shouldn't write tickets for speeding at all, but that's a huge fish to tackle (and one I have no clue how to tackle).

How many speeding tickets do they even write on the fast sections? It's not like people will go as much above there as they do in a 65 zone.

I mean in the US. We can adopt an unrestricted speed limit, but when do police write tickets for speeding? As I said, not at all, hopefully.

I don't think the Autobahnpolizei write many, if any, tickets for speed (even when the speed is unsafe for conditions) on derestricted lengths, though they do police lane discipline aggressively.  In my experience, the liability flip at 130 km/h and fuel economy considerations are enough to keep typical cruising speeds at around that value.

The problem with having an Interstate system built by 50 state DOTs instead of a central authority is that, inevitably, some of the DOTs chose the "do the minimum" approach to claim the 90% federal funding, and did not have expertise in higher-level considerations such as design consistency.  As a result, considerable lengths of the Interstate system have very little slack in their design.  The design criteria were also rather loose to begin with.  Our original flat-country horizontal curvature standard was 1,190 ft minimum radius at 70 MPH, whereas the equivalent German standard was 2,000 m (about 6,600 ft) minimum radius at 160 km/h.

I don't object to German speed limit policy on a highway built to German standards, but that is not the case we are dealing with here except in certain parts of the country where design speed is less of an issue owing to long lengths of tangent alignment.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 27, 2015, 04:10:29 PM
I don't object to German speed limit policy on a highway built to German standards, but that is not the case we are dealing with here except in certain parts of the country where design speed is less of an issue owing to long lengths of tangent alignment.

Are you personally aware of any states that were a bit more stringent with design standards?

Are these very high speeds for interstates/divided highways only?

The force from a large car/truck going by on a two-lane road at 80-85, no matter how rural, can easily destabilize a small car or motorcycle.

Montana's 80 MPH bill (in final form: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/SB0375.pdf) is on the governor's desk. No reason to think he won't sign it.

Quote from: relaxok on April 27, 2015, 09:53:42 PM
Are these very high speeds for interstates/divided highways only?

The force from a large car/truck going by on a two-lane road at 80-85, no matter how rural, can easily destabilize a small car or motorcycle.

Yes. Germany's max on non-Autobahn roads is 100 (62 mph).

Most states cap around that for undivided roads, with a few relatively undeveloped western states at 70 and Texas at 75.

Quote from: J N WinklerI don't object to German speed limit policy on a highway built to German standards, but that is not the case we are dealing with here except in certain parts of the country where design speed is less of an issue owing to long lengths of tangent alignment.

Time to break out this old page (scroll to the bottom)...

http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/autobahn/index.html

The only area where it appears German Autobahns have a higher standard than U.S. Interstates is in rural design speed.  Though that particular aspect does line up with the point you were making earlier.

Wisconsin legislative GOP leaders reach agreement on 70 MPH for limited-access freeways: http://fox6now.com/2015/04/28/lawmakers-reach-deal-on-raising-speed-limit-to-70-mph/

Quote from: Big John on April 28, 2015, 09:45:59 PM
Wisconsin legislative GOP leaders reach agreement on 70 MPH for limited-access freeways: http://fox6now.com/2015/04/28/lawmakers-reach-deal-on-raising-speed-limit-to-70-mph/

So who does this leave at 65 or under? AK, CT, DE, HI, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, and VT, correct?

Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2015, 01:14:29 PM

Quote from: roadfro on April 26, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

Setting near-unobtainable goals goes hand in hand with failure to reach said goals. I'd rather states cut fatalities by, say 3 to 4% each year instead of 100%. The goal of these fatality reductions really is so a state can look good on paper (heartless, sure, but true), and states will look better on paper if they consistently meet goals. A long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities by 2100 (or so) is fine (that might even be the point of "vision zero") but, because most of us will be dead by then, why not set achievable goals in the interim?

Coming back to this side conversation: As I was watching the news tonight, they ran a story about the top dangerous intersections in Reno. During this, they mentioned that the Nevada  "zero fatalities" goal is hoped to be achieved by 2030. So that kind of aligns with your post here, just not nearly as long range as you suggested.

Quote from: roadfro on May 01, 2015, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2015, 01:14:29 PM

Quote from: roadfro on April 26, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

Setting near-unobtainable goals goes hand in hand with failure to reach said goals. I'd rather states cut fatalities by, say 3 to 4% each year instead of 100%. The goal of these fatality reductions really is so a state can look good on paper (heartless, sure, but true), and states will look better on paper if they consistently meet goals. A long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities by 2100 (or so) is fine (that might even be the point of "vision zero") but, because most of us will be dead by then, why not set achievable goals in the interim?

Coming back to this side conversation: As I was watching the news tonight, they ran a story about the top dangerous intersections in Reno. During this, they mentioned that the Nevada  "zero fatalities" goal is hoped to be achieved by 2030. So that kind of aligns with your post here, just not nearly as long range as you suggested.

So they're planning on outlawing cars in 2029?

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2015, 10:08:33 PM

Quote from: roadfro on May 01, 2015, 02:58:49 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2015, 01:14:29 PM

Quote from: roadfro on April 26, 2015, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 24, 2015, 01:18:50 AM

Quote
"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

Setting near-unobtainable goals goes hand in hand with failure to reach said goals. I'd rather states cut fatalities by, say 3 to 4% each year instead of 100%. The goal of these fatality reductions really is so a state can look good on paper (heartless, sure, but true), and states will look better on paper if they consistently meet goals. A long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities by 2100 (or so) is fine (that might even be the point of "vision zero") but, because most of us will be dead by then, why not set achievable goals in the interim?

Coming back to this side conversation: As I was watching the news tonight, they ran a story about the top dangerous intersections in Reno. During this, they mentioned that the Nevada  "zero fatalities" goal is hoped to be achieved by 2030. So that kind of aligns with your post here, just not nearly as long range as you suggested.

So they're planning on outlawing cars in 2029?

The root of my irritation. Washington is also doing a zero in 2030 thing.

It reeks of some bureaucrat seeing the decrease in traffic fatalities, running some math and saying "AHA! if we keep reducing deaths at this rate, we'll be at zero in 2030." The number will eventually plateau and then start going down at a slower rate.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 03, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
It reeks of some bureaucrat seeing the decrease in traffic fatalities, running some math and saying "AHA! if we keep reducing deaths at this rate, we'll be at zero in 2030." The number will eventually plateau and then start going down at a slower rate.

At least in Washington, they even want to eliminate "serious injuries". Not sure how they plan to curb real issues such as suicide, but I'm sure increased speed enforcement is on the interim agenda.

EDIT, FWIW: the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), 23 USC 148" requires each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.  If the roads are empty who cares?  Anything in between will see most folks moving at the comfortable speed and if someone gets crazy, a smartphone/cellphone call will alert the authorities. 

What more is needed?  Oh right, bureaucrats are involved.  They will find a way to shoehorn more sh*t where it is not needed or appreciated.

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 12:18:39 AM
Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.  If the roads are empty who cares?  Anything in between will see most folks moving at the comfortable speed and if someone gets crazy, a smartphone/cellphone call will alert the authorities. 

What more is needed?  Oh right, bureaucrats are involved.  They will find a way to shoehorn more sh*t where it is not needed or appreciated.

Rick

From an engineer's perspective, I can tell you that it's safer to have everyone on the road drive 75-80 than it is to have some going 80 and others going 60-65. Raising the speed limit decreases the standard deviation of travel speeds on the road.

Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 12:18:39 AM
Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.  If the roads are empty who cares?  Anything in between will see most folks moving at the comfortable speed and if someone gets crazy, a smartphone/cellphone call will alert the authorities. 

What more is needed?  Oh right, bureaucrats are involved.  They will find a way to shoehorn more sh*t where it is not needed or appreciated.

Rick

I've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

Speed limits are useful on some roads, particularly winding mountain roads. Imagine some idiot taking a curve too fast, driving into the other lane and smashing into someone head on. People are not good at judging their own skill at anything. Speed limits are supposed to mitigate this somewhat.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 04, 2015, 01:40:08 PM
Speed limits are useful on some roads, particularly winding mountain roads. Imagine some idiot taking a curve too fast, driving into the other lane and smashing into someone head on. People are not good at judging their own skill at anything. Speed limits are supposed to mitigate this somewhat.

Speed limits are also good around schools. I have no issue with a 15 mph limit in front of a school during arrival/dismissal. Same with residential neighborhoods, again because of children. It just isn't safe to drive fast in areas of high pedestrian activity. Freeways, however, are often set way too low, especially because they're typically designed at minimum for the largest vehicle to drive a consistent 70.

Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 12:18:39 AM
Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.

When traffic is moving, I actually find that travel speeds can be *higher* during rush hour.  If there's a large group of traffic going 80, 85 mph in a 65 zone, the cops - at least here in NJ - appear to be fairly reluctant to pull anyone over, knowing that traffic would instantly congest traffic.  If I was going 85 in a 65 in the lighter traffic during the middle of the day, I'd be a dead duck.

Quote from: cl94 on May 04, 2015, 11:44:11 AM
Raising the speed limit decreases the standard deviation of travel speeds on the road.

Has this been proven? I haven't seen this happening myself when they raised the speed limit from 55 to 65. Maybe at first when there was more enforcement, but not long term. Maybe if it's high enough, like 85, people will hesitate to drive 100, but not 55 vs 65

Quote from: bzakharin on May 04, 2015, 03:58:18 PM

Quote from: cl94 on May 04, 2015, 11:44:11 AM
Raising the speed limit decreases the standard deviation of travel speeds on the road.

Has this been proven? I haven't seen this happening myself when they raised the speed limit from 55 to 65. Maybe at first when there was more enforcement, but not long term. Maybe if it's high enough, like 85, people will hesitate to drive 100, but not 55 vs 65

If the speed limit gets high enough, most likely. I know that the SD on NY 33 decreased when the speed limit went from 50 to 55, because geometry constraints effectively limit maximum speeds. It gets to a point where people won't drive any faster no matter the speed limit because they don't feel safe doing so. Michigan published a study last year related to differential speed limits showing that the SD does decrease ever so slightly when a uniform 65 increases to a uniform 70 (5.7 mph vs 5.4 mph), yet it really isn't enough to be statistically significant. The difference between 65 and 75, however, is probably much greater.

IIRC, the Netherlands found similar findings when they raised their speed limits.

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2015, 01:38:03 PMI've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

I would keep speedometers.  Some people need them to gauge efficient operation of their cars, and in general they are a useful corrective to speed adaptation.

Speedometers also help if you change cars.  Get used to how much noise = 65 in old jalopy, then switch to a new car that's quiet and have trouble gauging speed.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2015, 07:37:40 PM

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2015, 01:38:03 PMI've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

I would keep speedometers.  Some people need them to gauge efficient operation of their cars, and in general they are a useful corrective to speed adaptation.

I would support keeping the tachometer in the car for that purpose.

Quote from: kkt on May 04, 2015, 07:49:42 PM
Speedometers also help if you change cars.  Get used to how much noise = 65 in old jalopy, then switch to a new car that's quiet and have trouble gauging speed.

The idea would be that it doesn't matter what "65" feels like- you'd drive at a speed that feels safe to you in whatever car you are driving.

I'm not actually advocating doing this because there's definitely downsides, but I do think that if I were absolute dictator of a country and could experiment on my people at will, I would try it just to see what happens.

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2015, 08:02:35 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2015, 07:37:40 PM

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2015, 01:38:03 PMI've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

I would keep speedometers.  Some people need them to gauge efficient operation of their cars, and in general they are a useful corrective to speed adaptation.

I would support keeping the tachometer in the car for that purpose.

Different cars have different gearing ratios.  For example, my civic can sustain a steady 45 in 5th gear.  My accord would have stalled under those conditions.

Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2015, 09:10:00 PM

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2015, 08:02:35 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2015, 07:37:40 PM

Quote from: corco on May 04, 2015, 01:38:03 PMI've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

I would keep speedometers.  Some people need them to gauge efficient operation of their cars, and in general they are a useful corrective to speed adaptation.

I would support keeping the tachometer in the car for that purpose.

Different cars have different gearing ratios.  For example, my civic can sustain a steady 45 in 5th gear.  My accord would have stalled under those conditions.

Which is why you would look at your tachometer? Or just listen to your engine.  Whether or not you stall is a function of engine speed, not road speed.

The tachometer doesn't really address speed adaptation, which is largely a perceptual effect.  A typical example of it is exiting a freeway after a sustained 60 MPH drive and unconsciously speeding up to 40 on the surface road because it "feels" like 20.  The tachometer will show RPM but not the gear the car is in (and for newer car models with CVTs it may not even be meaningful to speak of being in a fixed gear).

I think perceptual problems are going to play a more prominent role in setting speed limits since the traditional justifications for low speed limits--to save fuel, to reduce dependence on imported fuel, to mitigate the severity of the crashes that do happen, etc.--are currently in eclipse politically.  The vagaries of driver perception are one reason design consistency is an active area of research.

It is also worth noting that abolition of all speed limits has been tried before.  Britain had complete derestriction (including urban areas) between 1930 (20 MPH national limit abolished) and 1933 (30 MPH urban speed limit introduced, rural derestriction preserved).  I think the urban limit was introduced to address a spike in urban fatalities, but I am having no luck finding quick online confirmation since recent editions of Road Casualties Great Britain quote just aggregate numbers at five-year intervals for the pre-World War II period.

QuoteThe tachometer doesn't really address speed adaptation, which is largely a perceptual effect.  A typical example of it is exiting a freeway after a sustained 60 MPH drive and unconsciously speeding up to 40 on the surface road because it "feels" like 20.  The tachometer will show RPM but not the gear the car is in (and for newer car models with CVTs it may not even be meaningful to speak of being in a fixed gear).

Well sure, but in this hypothetical the idea is to totally divorce your mind from the concept of speed- it wouldn't matter if you were going 40 instead of 20, as long as you felt comfortable doing so. The practical effect of something like this would be that you'd have to reconfigure roads to reflect intended driving speed- either through making roads narrower or implementing things like speed bumps or chicanes to calm traffic, that would help to limit the perception problem. If building a road by a school, one would want to design it so it's uncomfortable to go faster than 20 MPH, as opposed to putting up a "speed limit 20" sign and having folks stare at their speedometers as they drive by, distracting them from the actual driving conditions.

The purpose of the tach would be to ensure that you're maximizing engine efficiency, not to ascertain speed, which is admittedly difficult to do with a CVT.

Looks like Montana's bill has been signed by Governor Steve Bullock today:
http://www.kbzk.com/story/28985730/bullock-signs-bill-to-increase-some-montana-highway-speed-limits

And it looks like Nevada's bill today has passed the Assembly and will go to Governor Brian Sandoval to be signed:
http://www.mynews4.com/news/story/Bill-allowing-80-mph-speed-limit-passes-Nevada/mt0672jH0U2mOyzwwDavZA.cspx

70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

Quote from: algorerhythms on May 11, 2015, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

Well that's about as conclusive as you can get.

Quote from: algorerhythms on May 11, 2015, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

It largely mentions the possibility of I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit; I wonder what other stretches of highways in MD will be getting such?

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 12, 2015, 11:16:21 AM

Quote from: algorerhythms on May 11, 2015, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

It largely mentions I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit; I wonder what other stretches of highways in MD will be getting such?

Is there really much else that could qualify? Most of the state is pretty suburban

Quote from: cl94 on May 12, 2015, 11:20:17 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 12, 2015, 11:16:21 AM

Quote from: algorerhythms on May 11, 2015, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

It largely mentions I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit; I wonder what other stretches of highways in MD will be getting such?

Is there really much else that could qualify? Most of the state is pretty suburban

A heck of a lot.  70 mph is just fine for suburban areas.  It's even fine for urban areas.  Just ask MDOT how they handle 70 mph around Detroit and Grand Rapids.

Quote from: cl94 on May 12, 2015, 11:20:17 AMIs there really much else that could qualify? Most of the state is pretty suburban.

Opening sentence from the linked-article (Bold emphasis added):

Quote from: Cumberland Times-News ArticleIt took three years, but a bill which could allow drivers to cruise a bit faster on the long stretches of Interstate 68 in Western Maryland and other highways in the state has moved into the fast lane.

One needs to keep in mind that once the NSL was completely abolished circa 1995; the states have more leeway to assign higher speed limits to suburban & urban highways as well where appropriate.  Personally, most of I-95 north of MD 43 would be a good candidate for 70 mph.

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 12, 2015, 11:16:21 AM

Quote from: algorerhythms on May 11, 2015, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:40:31 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
70 in Maryland is nearly a go.  It is on the list of bills to be signed Wednesday (see page 3).

http://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PressReleaseS4Signed11amMay122015.pdf

Do you think Hogan will sign it?

Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

It largely mentions I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit; I wonder what other stretches of highways in MD will be getting such?

Can't help but think 95 will stay at 65 mph unless DE and NJ decide to raise their limits. Also, I'd be surprised if the limit were raised for 270 and 70 east of Frederick. Of course, with the current governor trying to leave his mark on the state, you never know.

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 12, 2015, 11:16:21 AM

Quote
Yes. (http://www.times-news.com/news/governor-to-sign-highway-speed-limit-bill/article_1c1bf434-f816-11e4-a830-63b016138698.html)

It largely mentions I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit...

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Quote...a bill which could allow drivers to cruise a bit faster on the long stretches of Interstate 68 in Western Maryland...

Guess which Interstate goes thru the reporting area of the Cumberland Times-News...

The bill only allows what the current law regarding 65 mph allows: For transportation officials to look to see what highways could be signed at a higher limit.

I think I-95 could easily see the higher limit, especially in Cecil County.  Below the Susquehanna, you can probably get another 10 miles or so of the higher limit, but the closer you get to Bel Air and Aberdeen, the likelihood will diminish. 

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 12, 2015, 11:32:55 AM
Can't help but think 95 will stay at 65 mph unless DE and NJ decide to raise their limits. Also, I'd be surprised if the limit were raised for 270 and 70 east of Frederick. Of course, with the current governor trying to leave his mark on the state, you never know.

DE's portion of I-95 will be raised to 65 in the next month or so.  NJ is 15 miles away at the closest point to MD; it has absolutely no impact on what MD would want to do.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 12, 2015, 11:16:21 AMIt largely mentions the possibility of I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit...

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Quote...a bill which could allow drivers to cruise a bit faster on the long stretches of Interstate 68 in Western Maryland...

Second sentence from the article (Bold emphasis added):

Quote from: Cumberland Times-NewsThe bill would allow an increase of the speed limit to 70 mph on state highways.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
Guess which Interstate goes thru the reporting area of the Cumberland Times-News...

No kidding.  But the speed limit along much of I-68 in neighboring WV has been 70 for about 20 years; so there's certainly a chance for could to become will.  If there ws no chance of I-68 getting a higher speed limit along certain sections; why even have the article?

While I-68 through Cumberland, MD itself will not increase to 70 (the article even states such further down); outside segments of 68 (currently at 65 mph) could be eligible for an increase.

Nonetheless, I will modify my previous post as shown above.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
DE's portion of I-95 will be raised to 65 in the next month or so.  NJ is 15 miles away at the closest point to MD; it has absolutely no impact on what MD would want to do.

It sort of does, though. The I-95 BosWash corridor essentially functions as its own entity, with different norms from other, more rural parts of the states that 95 passes through. Local politicians and administrators are likely looking to their counterparts up and down 95 than they are in say, Hagerstown.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 12, 2015, 01:06:23 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
DE's portion of I-95 will be raised to 65 in the next month or so.  NJ is 15 miles away at the closest point to MD; it has absolutely no impact on what MD would want to do.

It sort of does, though. The I-95 BosWash corridor essentially functions as its own entity, with different norms from other, more rural parts of the states that 95 passes through. Local politicians and administrators are likely looking to their counterparts up and down 95 than they are in say, Hagerstown.

Agree. Traffic patterns tend to be corridor-wide instead of regional.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 12, 2015, 01:06:23 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
DE's portion of I-95 will be raised to 65 in the next month or so.  NJ is 15 miles away at the closest point to MD; it has absolutely no impact on what MD would want to do.

It sort of does, though. The I-95 BosWash corridor essentially functions as its own entity, with different norms from other, more rural parts of the states that 95 passes through. Local politicians and administrators are likely looking to their counterparts up and down 95 than they are in say, Hagerstown.

Completely disagree.  Maybe on a national level it looks like there's a regional partnership from Boston to DC, but any agreements are few and far in-between.  If you want to look at speed limits, Jersey could care less what Delaware does.  PA couldn't care what NY does.  CT doesn't care what MD does, and so forth.  Delaware's I-95 has remained 55 mph for 17 years since NJ went to 65 (and even longer since MD went 65).  If there was any sort of regional cohesiveness, NJ's I-95 would've been completed long ago. 

Each state does what they want to do. 

BTW, a good case in point:  The NJ Turnpike widening was to be completed around the same time the PA Turnpike completed their connection of the Turnpike & I-95.  And a parallel bridge was to be built connecting NJ & PA.  The NJ Turnpike's widening project is complete.  PA has barely started their connection project, and are only completing a small portion of it at first.  And the bridge widening is a decade off, at minimum.  PA had no care in the world that their project is years behind at best.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 12, 2015, 01:06:23 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
DE's portion of I-95 will be raised to 65 in the next month or so.  NJ is 15 miles away at the closest point to MD; it has absolutely no impact on what MD would want to do.

It sort of does, though. The I-95 BosWash corridor essentially functions as its own entity, with different norms from other, more rural parts of the states that 95 passes through. Local politicians and administrators are likely looking to their counterparts up and down 95 than they are in say, Hagerstown.

If we're just talking about I-95, isn't PA much closer to MD than NJ? Isn't I-95 in PA still 55 the entire length? Or are we talking about the NJ Turnpike?

Generally speaking, the entire NJ Turnpike is included when talking about I-95.  Most of the sub-routes to 95 are included as well (Beltways, the 295s and 495s, etc).

When you look at the I-95 Corridor Coalition's map, it certainly appears that they completely bypass PA, and include the NJ Turnpike as THE I-95 route! http://www.i95coalition.org/the-coalition-2/i-95-facts/

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2015, 03:43:34 PMWhen you look at the I-95 Corridor Coalition's map, it certainly appears that they completely bypass PA, and include the NJ Turnpike as THE I-95 route! http://www.i95coalition.org/the-coalition-2/i-95-facts/

If one looks at the highlighted counties along the map in the link and the listings of states below; PA is certainly included.

PA is also included in the 511 Travel Information Map (scroll down) (http://www.i95coalition.org/511-travel-information/).

Governor Sandoval signed Nevada Senate Bill 2 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/1139/Overview) yesterday, authorizing Nevada DOT to increase speed limits to a maximum of 80 mph when the law takes effect on October 1.

I believe the governor personally opposed the bill, as his Director of Transportation had testified against it at an Assembly hearing and the signature came on the last possible day for action.  However, the bill had unanimous support from the legislators in his own (Republican) party, and enough support from Democrats that it passed by veto-proof majorities in both houses, so I suppose he went along grudgingly.

The law does not require Nevada DOT to raise any speed limits.  My guess is that there might be a "demonstration project" along some stretch of I-80 in 2016 with actual speed and accident data collected.  Eventually we may see 80 mph limits across most of I-80 from Fernley to the Utah border (around 350 miles) and on I-15 from northeast of Las Vegas to Arizona, but that might have to wait until Sandoval's term has expired.

Also under this law, if a posted speed limit is 75 or 80 and the driver is pulled over for exceeding it by no more than 5 mph, punishment is limited to a $25 fine and is not counted as a moving violation (this already applies if you're going 10 mph over in a 60 or 65 zone or 5 mph over in a 70 zone).

Quote from: gonealookin on May 15, 2015, 12:27:59 PM
Governor Sandoval signed Nevada Senate Bill 2 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/1139/Overview) yesterday, authorizing Nevada DOT to increase speed limits to a maximum of 80 mph when the law takes effect on October 1.

(...)

Also under this law, if a posted speed limit is 75 or 80 and the driver is pulled over for exceeding it by no more than 5 mph, punishment is limited to a $25 fine and is not counted as a moving violation (this already applies if you're going 10 mph over in a 60 or 65 zone or 5 mph over in a 70 zone).

Something interesting about this provision of the bill...

Previous law set the maximum allowable speed at 75mph, and allowed the reduced penalties as follows:
Speed limit = 60, speeding not over 70
Speed limit = 65, speeding not over 75
Speed limit = 70, speeding not over 75

New law sets the maximum allowable speed at 80mph, retains previous reduced penalties and introduced two more:
Speed limit = 60, speeding not over 70
Speed limit = 65, speeding not over 75
Speed limit = 70, speeding not over 75
Speed limit = 75, speeding not over 80
Speed limit = 80, speeding not over 85

With the previous law on the books, there was no reduced penalty for anyone who exceeds the maximum allowable speed limit. The new law does allow a reduced penalty if driving over the maximum speed, which doesn't make sense (even the original bill did this).


I would have done it like this:
Maximum allowable speed is 80, reduced penalties allowed as follows:
Speed limit = 60, speeding not over 70
Speed limit = 65, speeding not over 75
Speed limit = 70, speeding not over 80
Speed limit = 75, speeding not over 80

This would have kept the original pattern and not provided an "award" for breaking the max speed.

^^ Why?  Allowing 5 mph allows for discrepancies in both the speedometer and the radar gun the cop is using.  Speedometers are only good to +/- 5%, as are radar guns (no matter what cops like to tell you).

It's mainly for the consistency between what existed previously versus what the bill has now.

In my opinion, the new law is basically saying, "we set this maximum speed, but it's kinda okay if you go a little bit over the maximum speed." The old one didn't do that.

Scott Walker signs law allowing 70 mph speed limits in Wisconsin (http://host.madison.com/news/state-and-regional/wisconsin-governor-signs-mph-speed-limit-bill/article_efbd771b-b68b-5770-b892-39569587f21b.html).

Quote from: algorerhythms on May 20, 2015, 02:16:15 PM
Scott Walker signs law allowing 70 mph speed limits in Wisconsin (http://host.madison.com/news/state-and-regional/wisconsin-governor-signs-mph-speed-limit-bill/article_efbd771b-b68b-5770-b892-39569587f21b.html).

Wisconsin finally joins the rest of the Midwest as a 70 mph zone, and there was much rejoicing.

Looks like they're following the "1987 rural speed limit rule"

The speed limit seems to be remaining 65 in several stretches around cities.  Obviously Milwaukee is exempt (as a 55 zone) and the metro area will stay 65 outside of that (southern Ozaukee (south of Port Washington), Milwaukee, Waukesha.  Other cities that will stay 65:
- Madison (US-151 to the Beltline Interchange on 39/90; I-94 to start as 70 at the Badger Interchange)
- Green bay (I-43 from WIS-29 northward), I-41 from WIS-172 northward - US-41 may be signed to 70 for a bit north of the city?)
- Appleton (I-41 in between the WIS-441 Jct's)
- Wausau (I-39 north of Business 51 south end - US-51 may be signed as 70 from Business 51 north end to CTH-K or close to Lincoln Dr north of Merrill?)
- Stevens Point (I-39 between WIS-54 and WIS-66)
- Eau Claire (I-94 between WIS-312 (North Crossing) and US-53 - US-53 may be signed as 70 from Chippewa Falls to Rice Lake?)
- La Crosse (I-90 from US-53 to MN line)
- Hudson (I-94 from WIS-35 (southbound?) to MN Line) <-- Suspect this is because of proximity to Twin Cities area - MN signed I-94 as 65 to there from the state line

This all makes sense to me since I feel that doing 70 in urban areas is risky due to close-proximity exits.  Though La Crosse (mainly French Island), Point (particularly between US-10 and CTH B in Plover) and Eau Claire don't have such, but the other cities do and have been slowed down at the appropriate locations IMO.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm <-- WisDOT announcement regarding it - they're going to start it next month. :bigass:

Wisconsin - no longer the Oregon of the Midwest.

La Crosse is probably due to the river floodplain.

Hudson has effectively been part of the Twin Cities metro for a couple decades.

Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2015, 07:23:18 PM
La Crosse is probably due to the river floodplain.

Hudson has effectively been part of the Twin Cities metro for a couple decades.

Not sure why on the flood plain, but - I actually thought it was to the western 53 interchange, but it's more likely the eastern one - which makes more sense.  MN has 70 right up to the bridge.  (Well not now since it's being reconstructed...)
fixed my bad -sso

Quote from: SSOWorld on May 20, 2015, 09:26:43 PM

Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2015, 07:23:18 PM
La Crosse is probably due to the river floodplain.

Hudson has effectively been part of the Twin Cities metro for a couple decades.

Not sure why on the flood plain, but - I actually thought it was to the western 53 interchange, but it's more likely the eastern one - which makes more sense.  MN has 70 right up to the bridge.  (Well not now since it's being reconstructed...)

Actually MnDOT starts an ends 70 about a mile from the US-14/61 interchange.

fixed my bad -sso

That may be for 2 reasons - 1 - the bridge was unsafe due to it's width... and integrity; 2 - to "slow drivers" before they enter WI and a sharp curve.

Also, it looks like Maryland's speed limit bill has been quietly signed by Governor Larry Hogan.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/The-Latest-House-votes-to-regulate-chemicals-in-6365320.php

An attempt to raise limits in eastern Oregon is underway - at the Governor's desk right now.

Keep in mind ODOT is vehemently against raising above 65 on the count of "more deaths" and has opposed legislation in the past.   The technical term of the current law writes that ODOT has descretion in raising limits to max 70.

Quote from: SSOWorld on July 04, 2015, 01:17:30 PM
http://www.chron.com/news/article/The-Latest-House-votes-to-regulate-chemicals-in-6365320.php

An attempt to raise limits in eastern Oregon is underway - at the Governor's desk right now.

Keep in mind ODOT is vehemently against raising above 65 on the count of "more deaths" and has opposed legislation in the past.   The technical term of the current law writes that ODOT has descretion in raising limits to max 70.

Oh thank God! This better pass, I swear. Too bad it wont take place until March 1, 2016 if it does. Taking a trip from Nampa to Seaside and back (going back through Bend) next week. Higher speed limits would be very nice. Will be great for future similar trips.

I take a lot of road trips all over the region and go to Oregon less than any other state nearby. Why? Because I'm at risk for a substantial speeding ticket everytime I go there if a cop is having a bad day and decides to enforce speeds below 70 in 55 zones. I hate the "clumping " culture in Oregon which is different from the rest of the west. In most of the inland west, we try to stay as far away from other cars as possible, but in eastern Oregon you find and stay  with a clump of speeding cars to minimize the likelihood of getting a ticket. With wildlife hazards/farn equipment/etc on the road, this is needlessly dangerous.

I look forward to not being stressed everytime I cross eaten Oregon and to wanting to visit the state more often. I hope it passes.

Quote from: corco on July 06, 2015, 02:12:46 PM
I look forward to not being stressed everytime I cross eaten Oregon and to wanting to visit the state more often. I hope it passes.

:pan:

Quote from: 1 on July 06, 2015, 05:14:10 PM

Quote from: corco on July 06, 2015, 02:12:46 PM
I look forward to not being stressed everytime I cross eaten Oregon and to wanting to visit the state more often. I hope it passes.

:pan:

That sounds stressful indeed.

Is Oklahoma going to ever allow the non turnpike freeways to have 75 mph? 

Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
Is Oklahoma going to ever allow the non turnpike freeways to have 75 mph? 

Makes me wonder if they bought into the idea that toll roads are to provide a "premium" service to drivers.  That was a big idea around here about five or six years ago.

Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 08:19:44 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
Is Oklahoma going to ever allow the non turnpike freeways to have 75 mph? 

Makes me wonder if they bought into the idea that toll roads are to provide a "premium" service to drivers.  That was a big idea Everywhere 60 years ago.

FTFY

Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 09, 2015, 09:01:38 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 08:19:44 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
Is Oklahoma going to ever allow the non turnpike freeways to have 75 mph? 

Makes me wonder if they bought into the idea that toll roads are to provide a "premium" service to drivers.  That was a big idea Everywhere 60 years ago.

FTFY

Heh.  Well done.

I was recalling conversations with one particular NYSDOT manager years ago who was actually arguing that NYSDOT roads should be expected to have a lower "quality" than the Thruway since the Thruway was providing a "premium service."

Yeah, he retired pretty shortly thereafter and was pretty shunted off to the side previous to that, anyway.

Oregon's latest speed limit increase bill (HB 3402) was signed by Gov. Brown on Monday.  I've started a thread for it on the Northwest board (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16048.msg2080812#new).

Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 09:07:40 AM

Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 09, 2015, 09:01:38 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 08:19:44 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
Is Oklahoma going to ever allow the non turnpike freeways to have 75 mph? 

Makes me wonder if they bought into the idea that toll roads are to provide a "premium" service to drivers.  That was a big idea Everywhere 60 years ago.

FTFY

Heh.  Well done.

I was recalling conversations with one particular NYSDOT manager years ago who was actually arguing that NYSDOT roads should be expected to have a lower "quality" than the Thruway since the Thruway was providing a "premium service."

Yeah, he retired pretty shortly thereafter and was pretty shunted off to the side previous to that, anyway.

Problem now is that, due to the lack of funding (thanks, Cuomo), they often are a significantly lower quality, at least out here.

I e-mailed Nevada DOT's information office to ask about implementation of SB2, which becomes law on October 1.  I don't want to copy and paste an e-mail reply, but to paraphrase, they're going to have a meeting in a couple weeks with the various agencies to identify segments of I-80 (initially) which will be candidates for 80 mph limits.  NDOT's Traffic Information staff will accumulate speed study data on the segments and, after consulting with the interested parties such as NHP and local law enforcement, will make speed limit change recommendations to the Director of NDOT.  Traffic Information already has other assignments pending so this job will have to be fit into their existing work schedule; therefore the study process is expected to take "months".  After the Director's approval, the NDOT district maintenance crews would then have to fit sign posting into their schedules.

Bottom line, I don't think you'll see 80 mph limits posted anywhere on I-80 in Nevada until a few months into 2016, and on any other highways (I-15?) it would be later than that.

Quote from: gonealookin on September 16, 2015, 02:04:42 PM
Bottom line, I don't think you'll see 80 mph limits posted anywhere on I-80 in Nevada until a few months into 2016, and on any other highways (I-15?) it would be later than that.

And that makes sense to me. Automatically bumping up all rural freeways straight to 80 seems pretty stupid. I'm sure the studies will support an increase, but a study should always be performed.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2015, 02:10:53 PM

Quote from: gonealookin on September 16, 2015, 02:04:42 PM
Bottom line, I don't think you'll see 80 mph limits posted anywhere on I-80 in Nevada until a few months into 2016, and on any other highways (I-15?) it would be later than that.

And that makes sense to me. Automatically bumping up all rural freeways straight to 80 seems pretty stupid. I'm sure the studies will support an increase, but a study should always be performed.

I agree with this approach, taking time to do the speed safety studies and not just do a blanket raise.

There will be some great stretches of I-80 that would be great candidates for higher speeds, but there are also some mountain passes that shouldn't be raised. I also don't know that I-15 to California would be wise to blanket raise without further study–while much of that traffic flows at 80+ now, I would be worried about the speed differentials out there (especially on holiday weekends.

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2015, 03:15:19 AM
I also don't know that I-15 to California would be wise to blanket raise without further study–while much of that traffic flows at 80+ now, I would be worried about the speed differentials out there (especially on holiday weekends.

I think a bigger concern is big rig traffic.  If I'm not mistaken, Nevada does not have a separate speed limit for trucks so if I-15 is raised to 80 MPH, that would create a 25 MPH differential in speed limits upon entering California and its 55 MPH speed limit for all trucks.

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2015, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2015, 03:15:19 AM
I also don't know that I-15 to California would be wise to blanket raise without further study–while much of that traffic flows at 80+ now, I would be worried about the speed differentials out there (especially on holiday weekends.

I think a bigger concern is big rig traffic.  If I'm not mistaken, Nevada does not have a separate speed limit for trucks so if I-15 is raised to 80 MPH, that would create a 25 MPH differential in speed limits upon entering California and its 55 MPH speed limit for all trucks.

Nevada does not have any separated speed limits.

Right now, I think the stretch of I-15 between Las Vegas and Primm (CA state line) is 70mph, but entering California I think it is 65mph/55 trucks. The speed differentials in Nevada exist regardless, because it is quite common to see people doing 80+ in this stretch amongst the more law-abiding travelers and trucks.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2015, 02:10:53 PM

And that makes sense to me. Automatically bumping up all rural freeways straight to 80 seems pretty stupid. I'm sure the studies will support an increase, but a study should always be performed.

Agreed.  South Dakota tried a blanket increase to 80 mph for all rural freeways without any study, only to later lower I-90 back to 75 mph west of Rapid City.

I wonder, if New Mexico introduces 80 mph speed limits, I wonder whether or not they would require a traffic study or if they would go for the blanket approach.  I personally think I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, as well as I-10 between Las Cruces and the Texas state line should remain 75 due to the relatively high amounts of traffic compared to other rural corridors in the state.  Plus, the New Mexico Rail Runner Express may throw a fit if I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe is raised to 80 mph, since it could adversely affect their ridership.

I see New Mexico as one of the two most likely candidates for the next state to raise their speed limit to 80, with the other being North Dakota.  I don't see it happening in Arizona anytime soon unless the state increases the criminal speeding threshold (which many of the state's lawmakers refuse to do), and the terrain in Colorado might not be ideal for an 80 mph limit. 

I actually wonder what is going on with Michigan's proposal.  Michigan announced it last year, but has been slower than other states in getting the bill to pass, since several states that introduced 80 mph bills after Michigan have already had them signed into law.  Is Michigan's bill dead?

Frankly, the only reason I want a study to be performed is so that it's harder to knock the limit back down again after it's posted, like in South Dakota.

As for the next 80 mph state, I'm voting for North Dakota. Something tells me NM and AZ would bump their limits at the same time if either of them were to consider it (though as stated already, the latter would need to do some work on the law books).

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2015, 03:59:13 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2015, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2015, 03:15:19 AM
I also don't know that I-15 to California would be wise to blanket raise without further study–while much of that traffic flows at 80+ now, I would be worried about the speed differentials out there (especially on holiday weekends.

It's 70 on the CA side of the line (55 trucks is correct though)

I think a bigger concern is big rig traffic.  If I'm not mistaken, Nevada does not have a separate speed limit for trucks so if I-15 is raised to 80 MPH, that would create a 25 MPH differential in speed limits upon entering California and its 55 MPH speed limit for all trucks.

Nevada does not have any separated speed limits.

Right now, I think the stretch of I-15 between Las Vegas and Primm (CA state line) is 70mph, but entering California I think it is 65mph/55 trucks. The speed differentials in Nevada exist regardless, because it is quite common to see people doing 80+ in this stretch amongst the more law-abiding travelers and trucks.

Pardon the graniness, but it is now 80 MPH in Montana. Even though MDT had discretion to leave some speed limits at 75 until they conducted a full safety investigation, they posted pretty deep into Helena, with this sign being posted just south of I-15 and US-12. The speed limit still drops to 65 for two exits north of there.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2FIMG_20151001_192254154.jpg&hash=3562ae4492e8e7fe7b721bb6daaab38cf6205a2a)

It's funny- when the bill to raise to 80 that passed was introduced, the primary intent was to lessen the truck speed differential, by also eliminating the 60 MPH off-interstate truck speed limit and raising interstate truck speed limits to 75. What actually got through was a speed limit increase to 80 for passenger cars, with no stipulations at all for trucks, so now Montana is tied with CA for the highest truck speed differential in the country. That's the power of the legislative process, for you. 

I was afraid this was going to happen. I just saw one near Frenchtown the other morning. Yep. Now I have 80 more god dang reasons to stay off I-90 because what if a deer came out and some car hit it at 80? You'd be pretty much sufficiently injured, or worse, dead.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 01, 2015, 10:52:32 PM
I was afraid this was going to happen. I just saw one near Frenchtown the other morning. Yep. Now I have 80 more god dang reasons to stay off I-90 because what if a deer came out and some car hit it at 80? You'd be pretty much sufficiently injured, or worse, dead.

You were fucked at 75 anyways. Big deal.

Big deal? Riiiiiight. Thus the heretic speaks bullshit.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 02, 2015, 01:23:20 AM
Big deal? Riiiiiight. Thus the heretic speaks bullshit.

I agree with the heretic.  Deer can cause injuries and death at much lower speeds than 80/75, so you might as well stay off the roads altogether if that's your standard.

You are more likely to see the deer far enough in advance to avoid them or at least slow to the point that the collision is not fatal to persons in the car if you're going slower.

If the argument is a collision with a deer would be worse, couldn't you make that argument as to any collision or other incident (such as hitting truck tire debris)? at some point you have to deem some level of risk acceptable. Otherwise we'd have 25-mph speed limits everywhere.

You don't have to go 80 mph just because you're allowed to do so. We were riding with my brother-in-law yesterday and his van is heavy. He seldom made it much above 65 in a 75-mph zone. But at least he stayed in the right lane! (Wednesday night he did hit truck tire debris. Somehow there was no damage. Sounded like he'd run over a bumper or something.)

Right, and you'd be hard pressed to find people that don't have Washington plates going 80+ on interstates in Montana at night at this time of year when there are deer everywhere.

I drove from Roundup back to Helena at night a week ago, and was going 60 MPH in a 70 most of the way. I passed five cars while doing this and was passed by nobody. We know to slow down in this state at night. One of the things I like about this state is that, far moreso than anywhere else I've lived (and I've lived in rural parts of other conservative states), people self-regulate. We want the speed limit as high as possible not because we want to drive that fast but because we don't want the government telling us that we can't drive that fast.

And, yeah, during the day when the roads are dry and wildlife aren't out in force, there is no reason why the speed limit shouldn't be 80. At night, people can generally be trusted to drive slower without a sign telling them they have to. And frankly, if they choose to drive 80 at night at this time of year, by about the second time in ten miles they have to slam their brakes to avoid hitting wildlife, they'll get the point that they need to slow down.

Please. Where I'm from, we had moose. Hit one of those at any speed. Back in 2003, my family was driving on US 9 just north of Saratoga and one darted across the road a couple car lengths in front of us. There's a reason why people have "I brake for moose" bumper stickers.

I've not heard a whisper about raising Colorado's speed limit to 80. If they did, I would only think it appropriate on I-70 east of Watkins, where U.S. 36 exits, and probably on much of I-76 though I haven't the familiarity with that route to judge where it should be. I-25 is urbanized over much of its length, and the part south of Pueblo has a lot of hills and curves. I-70 from Grand Junction to Utah is hilly and windy.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 17, 2015, 07:01:56 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2015, 02:10:53 PM

And that makes sense to me. Automatically bumping up all rural freeways straight to 80 seems pretty stupid. I'm sure the studies will support an increase, but a study should always be performed.

Agreed.  South Dakota tried a blanket increase to 80 mph for all rural freeways without any study, only to later lower I-90 back to 75 mph west of Rapid City.

There was talk when they did that of keeping it at 80 from Spearfish to WY, and the argument against was "Wyoming doesn't think I-90 should be 80, so we'll go with them." Now that stretch is 80 in WY. So, that 10-mile stretch might go back up to 80.

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 02, 2015, 10:08:09 PM
I've not heard a whisper about raising Colorado's speed limit to 80. If they did, I would only think it appropriate on I-70 east of Watkins, where U.S. 36 exits, and probably on much of I-76 though I haven't the familiarity with that route to judge where it should be. I-25 is urbanized over much of its length, and the part south of Pueblo has a lot of hills and curves. I-70 from Grand Junction to Utah is hilly and windy.

I don't see Colorado or Arizona raising their speed limits to 80 anytime soon; Colorado due to the terrain and Arizona due to its 85+ criminal speeding law (such bills in Arizona have been attempted in the past and have all failed due to the refusal of state lawmakers to increase the criminal speeding threshold).  I think either North Dakota or New Mexico are the most likely states. 

For New Mexico, here are some highways that I think can safely be raised to 80:

• I-25 in Sierra County.
• I-25 north of Las Vegas and south of Raton.
• I-40 east of Grants and west of Albuquerque except at one curve in the Laguna Indian Reservation.
• I-40 east of Moriarty and west of Santa Rosa.
• I-40 east of Santa Rosa and west of Tucumcari.
• I-40 east of Tucumcari to Texas line.
• US 70 through White Sands.

Perhaps some parts of I-10 may be able to be raised as well, although I am not sure which parts in particular.  Perhaps between Deming and Las Cruces, as well as between Lordsburg and Deming?

I would keep I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe at 75, as well as I-10 between Las Cruces and the Texas line, both due to higher traffic amounts.  Also, the New Mexico Rail Runner Express will probably throw a fit if I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe is raised to 80, since it could adversely affect their ridership.

Also, I think some roads that are currently 70 mph can be raised to 75 mph.  One such highway that comes to mind is US 285 between Vaughn and Roswell.

Looks like Kansas is the latest state with an 80 mph speed limit proposal.  Unfortunately, it looks like they are going for a blanket increase, the same botched mistake made by South Dakota, and there is already opposition by KDOT and the Kansas Highway Patrol to this bill.  Blanket increases are not the way, let KDOT make its own determination if 80 mph speed limits are appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

States really should learn from the South Dakota fiasco when it comes to blanket speed limit increases.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 11, 2016, 01:26:03 PM
Looks like Kansas is the latest state with an 80 mph speed limit proposal.  Unfortunately, it looks like they are going for a blanket increase, the same botched mistake made by South Dakota, and there is already opposition by KDOT and the Kansas Highway Patrol to this bill.  Blanket increases are not the way, let KDOT make its own determination if 80 mph speed limits are appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

States really should learn from the South Dakota fiasco when it comes to blanket speed limit increases.

Isn't that what normally happens anyway?  80 mph is a speed limit where appropriate; not mandatory for all roads.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2016, 01:43:44 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 11, 2016, 01:26:03 PM
Looks like Kansas is the latest state with an 80 mph speed limit proposal.  Unfortunately, it looks like they are going for a blanket increase, the same botched mistake made by South Dakota, and there is already opposition by KDOT and the Kansas Highway Patrol to this bill.  Blanket increases are not the way, let KDOT make its own determination if 80 mph speed limits are appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

States really should learn from the South Dakota fiasco when it comes to blanket speed limit increases.

Isn't that what normally happens anyway?  80 mph is a speed limit where appropriate; not mandatory for all roads.

Yes, most states that have introduced 80 mph speed limits required that the DOT makes a determination that the speed limit is appropriate.  South Dakota was the lone exception so far, where the law automatically bumped up all 75 mph zones to 80 mph, and it appears that Kansas' bill will do the same.

And then there's this thread, in which Michigan would become the first state east of the Mississippi to have 80 mph limits: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17393.0

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/02/75-80-mph-may-new-limit-rural-highways/79702158/

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 11, 2016, 01:26:03 PMLooks like Kansas is the latest state with an 80 mph speed limit proposal.  Unfortunately, it looks like they are going for a blanket increase, the same botched mistake made by South Dakota, and there is already opposition by KDOT and the Kansas Highway Patrol to this bill.  Blanket increases are not the way, let KDOT make its own determination if 80 mph speed limits are appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

I haven't yet dug up the text of the actual bill, but this Capital-Journal article implies the intent is not to impose a blanket increase to 80:

http://cjonline.com/news/2016-02-09/kansas-bill-raising-speed-limit-80-mph-runs-political-roadblock

Current legislation authorizes KDOT to set a 75 limit on any divided highway, so it sounds like the bill would simply change this ceiling value to 80.  In practice KDOT has allowed 75 only on freeways that have specialization by class, a category of freeway that includes all Interstates, a length of US 81 north of Salina, and K-10 between Lawrence and Shawnee Mission.  I suspect K-10 is the only significant rural length of such road that still has a 70 limit.

The Kansas bill would increase the default speed limit on "any separated multilane highway."  The authority to lower the limit based on engineering studies under section 8-1559 would remain the same as it is today.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/hb2450_00_0000.pdf (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/hb2450_00_0000.pdf)

Yup.  This bill also doesn't fix what I consider to be a drafting "bad smell" in the statutes.  KSA 8-1558 fixes 55 MPH as the maximum speed limit on county and township roads, but there is separate authority under KSA 8-1560(h) to impose higher limits on such roads, up to 65 MPH.

I for one would like to see some of the rural interstates and parkways in the western Kentucky increased to 75 or 80mph, that is if the roads are safe enough.

Georgia's I-75 could also use a speed increase to 75 or 80 while keeping the 85mph Super Speeder law in place . That way, drivers won't just go to 90+ and will instead close the speed gap between law abiders and speeders. Currently, you have a small amount of law abiders going 70 and lots of speeders going between 80-85.

Quote from: ukfan758 on February 15, 2016, 04:28:33 PM
I for one would like to see some of the rural interstates and parkways in the western Kentucky increased to 75 or 80mph, that is if the roads are safe enough.

Georgia's I-75 could also use a speed increase to 75 or 80 while keeping the 85mph Super Speeder law in place . That way, drivers won't just go to 90+ and will instead close the speed gap between law abiders and speeders. Currently, you have a small amount of law abiders going 70 and lots of speeders going between 80-85.

5 mph is too small of a cushion. That falls within faulty speedometer range. A reckless law has to be at least 10 above or you'd be giving every person with a speeding ticket a ticket for reckless driving.

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 04:39:43 PM

Quote from: ukfan758 on February 15, 2016, 04:28:33 PM
I for one would like to see some of the rural interstates and parkways in the western Kentucky increased to 75 or 80mph, that is if the roads are safe enough.

Georgia's I-75 could also use a speed increase to 75 or 80 while keeping the 85mph Super Speeder law in place . That way, drivers won't just go to 90+ and will instead close the speed gap between law abiders and speeders. Currently, you have a small amount of law abiders going 70 and lots of speeders going between 80-85.

5 mph is too small of a cushion. That falls within faulty speedometer range. A reckless law has to be at least 10 above or you'd be giving every person with a speeding ticket a ticket for reckless driving.

Would an increase to 75 be sufficient/work for the faulty speedometer range and 85mph Super Speeder law? Doing that would still close the gap to 10mph instead of the current 15 which would make it safer.

Agree that such a change would put Georgia in the same club as Arizona and Virginia, and would even be worse if Georgia were to raise their speed limit to 80 mph without changing the Super Speeder law, since 5 mph is far too small of a buffer.  This is what has killed every effort in Arizona to raise the speed limit to 80 mph, and the state's lawmakers refuse to change the criminal speeding threshold.

85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

(I seem to recall travelling near that speed the last time I was in the NE, but such high speeds are fairly irregular in the Seattle area -- 85 is usually the upper end of speeds, if only because traffic is so miserable)

That's exactly my point. 85 is downright paltry in some parts of the country, and I certainly don't have any reason to believe that Georgia has substandard roads incapable of speeds beyond 85. So, in short, change the law, not the limits.

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Likewise on I-96 between Howell and Farmington, Michigan.  I've been caught in 95 mph flows there and been passed while going 90-95.

Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2016, 06:44:49 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Likewise on I-96 between Howell and Farmington, Michigan.  I've been caught in 95 mph flows there and been passed while going 90-95.

Actually, that reminds me....

On one occasion, I was driving between Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, on Highway 2, in July of 2014. It was the last day of a holiday weekend, and there was plenty of traffic filtering between the two cities. Traffic was peaking at 100 MPH for much of the journey. I even pulled off the freeway for a bite to eat, and when I rejoined, traffic was still going near 100, so it wasn't an anomaly. When I met up with some family in Calgary, they informed that the Alberta RCMP is pretty lax with speed enforcement on holiday weekends.

During my only trip to England, I was going about 80 on the motorways, but I was being passed a lot. At one point, between Dover and London, I was going 100+ easy, and I was still being passed. Must have been a bunch of continental traffic? Lol.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:57:47 PM

Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2016, 06:44:49 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Likewise on I-96 between Howell and Farmington, Michigan.  I've been caught in 95 mph flows there and been passed while going 90-95.

Actually, that reminds me....

On one occasion, I was driving between Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, on Highway 2, in July of 2014. It was the last day of a holiday weekend, and there was plenty of traffic filtering between the two cities. Traffic was peaking at 100 MPH for much of the journey. I even pulled off the freeway for a bite to eat, and when I rejoined, traffic was still going near 100, so it wasn't an anomaly. When I met up with some family in Calgary, they informed that the Alberta RCMP is pretty lax with speed enforcement on holiday weekends.

During my only trip to England, I was going about 80 on the motorways, but I was being passed a lot. At one point, between Dover and London, I was going 100+ easy, and I was still being passed. Must have been a bunch of continental traffic? Lol.

Sticking to Canada, the QEW doesn't have a speed limit. Ontario Provincial Police doesn't do much enforcement and traffic often exceeds 85-90 MPH. Keep in mind that reckless driving there is 50 km/h over and they can take your car when they pull you over.

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM
The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Though when I visited Suffolk County, N.Y. for the first time, I saw a fair amount of speed limit enforcement with radar by (marked) county police cars on I-495 (Long Island Expressway).

Now it is possible that they have pretty fixed locations for doing radar speed limit enforcement and most of the speeders know where to refrain from too much speed over the posted limit.,

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 07:01:54 PM
Keep in mind that reckless driving there is 50 km/h over and they can take your car when they pull you over.

Virginia law apparently allows police to at least impound cars driven by persons charged under the Commonwealth's reckless driving laws.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2016, 12:20:43 AM

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM
The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Though when I visited Suffolk County, N.Y. for the first time, I saw a fair amount of speed limit enforcement with radar by (marked) county police cars on I-495 (Long Island Expressway).

Now it is possible that they have pretty fixed locations for doing radar speed limit enforcement and most of the speeders know where to refrain from too much speed over the posted limit.,

They have fixed locations and times. A lot of locals avoid the LIE for that reason and because of truck traffic.

I don't see any state east of the Mississippi going to 80 mph at this time (including Michigan's current attempt).

Rather I could see some states states upping the speed limit to 75 on certain sections like Maine and Louisiana have done (even though Louisiana is west of the river). There are plenty of rural interstate highways in the east that could adopt such a limit (I-16 in Georgia for example).

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 17, 2016, 08:04:49 AM
I don't see any state east of the Mississippi going to 80 mph at this time (including Michigan's current attempt).

Rather I could see some states states upping the speed limit to 75 on certain sections like Maine and Louisiana have done (even though Louisiana is west of the river). There are plenty of rural interstate highways in the east that could adopt such a limit (I-16 in Georgia for example).

New York has had proposals for 75. Most of the Thruway and I-81 could handle it.

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 17, 2016, 08:04:49 AM

Rather I could see some states states upping the speed limit to 75 on certain sections like Maine and Louisiana have done (even though Louisiana is west of the river). There are plenty of rural interstate highways in the east that could adopt such a limit (I-16 in Georgia for example).

That probably excludes Virginia if I would guess.  The 10 mph buffer for reckless driving is already controversial, and there is already a bill to raise it to 85 mph to have a 15 mph buffer.  Raising the speed limit to 75 would put Virginia back in the situation they are in now if the current reckless driving bill passes unless the absolute limit is raised again to at least 90 mph.

Interestingly, not as many people seem to be aware of Arizona's equivalent law for criminal speeding, except for out-of-state drivers who actually get nailed.  I wonder if there is a difference in enforcement rate between Virginia and Arizona, as well as between in-state vs. out-of-state drivers.

Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 10:27:27 AM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 17, 2016, 08:04:49 AM
I don't see any state east of the Mississippi going to 80 mph at this time (including Michigan's current attempt).

Rather I could see some states states upping the speed limit to 75 on certain sections like Maine and Louisiana have done (even though Louisiana is west of the river). There are plenty of rural interstate highways in the east that could adopt such a limit (I-16 in Georgia for example).

New York has had proposals for 75. Most of the Thruway and I-81 could handle it.

NY and anything above 65, I just can't picture it.  :-/

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 17, 2016, 08:30:48 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 10:27:27 AM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 17, 2016, 08:04:49 AM
I don't see any state east of the Mississippi going to 80 mph at this time (including Michigan's current attempt).

Rather I could see some states states upping the speed limit to 75 on certain sections like Maine and Louisiana have done (even though Louisiana is west of the river). There are plenty of rural interstate highways in the east that could adopt such a limit (I-16 in Georgia for example).

New York has had proposals for 75. Most of the Thruway and I-81 could handle it.

NY and anything above 65, I just can't picture it.  :-/

Before NMSL, it was 70 here.

Quote
Before NMSL, it was 70 here.

It was 65 right before the 1973 oil embargo began. I remember hearing that NYDOT put the 65 signs into storage and put them back up when they raised the limit in 1995.

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 18, 2016, 07:46:09 AM

Quote
Before NMSL, it was 70 here.

It was 65 right before the 1973 oil embargo began. I remember hearing that NYDOT put the 65 signs into storage and put them back up when they raised the limit in 1995.

The same ones?  Wouldn't they have been, well, old?  And without updated reflectivity standards?

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 18, 2016, 07:46:09 AM

Quote
Before NMSL, it was 70 here.

It was 65 right before the 1973 oil embargo began. I remember hearing that NYDOT put the 65 signs into storage and put them back up when they raised the limit in 1995.

Thruway was 70 for a very short time, not necessarily right before the embargo

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:39:56 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

(I seem to recall travelling near that speed the last time I was in the NE, but such high speeds are fairly irregular in the Seattle area -- 85 is usually the upper end of speeds, if only because traffic is so miserable)

That's exactly my point. 85 is downright paltry in some parts of the country, and I certainly don't have any reason to believe that Georgia has substandard roads incapable of speeds beyond 85. So, in short, change the law, not the limits.

85 is fine and feels controllable in modern cars with traction control. In, say, a 1972 Buick LeSabre, it absolutely was a reckless speed, and that was around the last time these laws were closely examined. Highway deaths per 100MM vehicle-miles are only a quarter what they were 40 years ago.

QuoteThruway was 70 for a very short time, not necessarily right before the embargo

You sure about that? There is a site on the history of the NY Thruway (http://www.upstatenyroads.com/thruway-history3.shtml) and 65 is the maximum limit ever listed (April 1962).

NJ actually increased it when they raised it back up from 55.  The Parkway used to be 60 from Toms River to the NY Border and only 65 south of Toms River.

  I do not know if the Driscoll and Great Egg Bridges were the 45 they are now, nor if NJ let cars do 65 through the former at grade part in Cape May CH, however from 100 to around MP 124 where the 65 is now in Ocean and Monmouth Counties is went up 5 mph from the pre embargo days.  Of course in Essex County it went down some as its either 50 or 55 through Irvington and East Orange now as it was 60 there.  Plus in Bergen north of the Paramus area where it is now 65, it was indeed 60 then which also gave an increase.

So in retrospect it was an indirect increase proposal.  I believe that also I-80 was 60 in Morris County between Netcong and Denville which, I believe now is 65 that was an increase and Route 78 was 60 mph west of Watchung where its now 65 from Newark to the Delaware River.  Of course I-78 east of Watchung opened up all of its three built stages post embargo so were 55 from opening day.

I do not know how accurate this is or not, but I saw once on a publication in my dad's old maps as a youngster that the ACE was posted at 70 mph.  Then finally the NJT, I believe was only 65 south of Bordentown only but was 60 north of Bordentown. 

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 19, 2016, 06:47:11 AM

QuoteThruway was 70 for a very short time, not necessarily right before the embargo

You sure about that? There is a site on the history of the NY Thruway (http://www.upstatenyroads.com/thruway-history3.shtml) and 65 is the maximum limit ever listed (April 1962).

I've seen in a couple of places that it was 70. May have been one of the Thruway annual reports. I may be incorrect.

Looks like Michigan's bill has stalled in the House:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/17/michigan-speed-limits-increase/80522924/

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2016, 07:56:41 AM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 18, 2016, 07:46:09 AM

Quote
Before NMSL, it was 70 here.

It was 65 right before the 1973 oil embargo began. I remember hearing that NYDOT put the 65 signs into storage and put them back up when they raised the limit in 1995.

The same ones?  Wouldn't they have been, well, old?  And without updated reflectivity standards?

NYSDOT Region 3 put up a number of pre-1973 Speed Limit 65 signs when the speed limit was increased back in 1995; they could easily be found by the older "Lehay" type 6.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fshields%2Fspeedlimit65.gif&hash=a4c03158190c18722c5824232c2922796d78b649)

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 07:01:54 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:57:47 PM

Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2016, 06:44:49 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 06:33:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
85 isn't that fast (it is, in fact, the speed limit in at least one part of the country). I'd be in favor of changing the law to 110 or something outrageous, with increasing penalties up to that point. Why so high? To prevent incriminating commuters who just happen to be travelling in a pack of cars going relatively fast.

Not to incriminate myself, but I've driven at 100 miles/hour for a few hundred yards in Southwest Washington on occasion. It sounds fast but it really isn't. Or to put it another way, it's fast on paper -- in the real world? Not so much.

The left lane travel speed in the lower Hudson Valley and on parts of Long Island approaches 100 on a regular basis. There are several places in this country where that isn't out of the range of what is common.

Likewise on I-96 between Howell and Farmington, Michigan.  I've been caught in 95 mph flows there and been passed while going 90-95.

Actually, that reminds me....

On one occasion, I was driving between Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, on Highway 2, in July of 2014. It was the last day of a holiday weekend, and there was plenty of traffic filtering between the two cities. Traffic was peaking at 100 MPH for much of the journey. I even pulled off the freeway for a bite to eat, and when I rejoined, traffic was still going near 100, so it wasn't an anomaly. When I met up with some family in Calgary, they informed that the Alberta RCMP is pretty lax with speed enforcement on holiday weekends.

During my only trip to England, I was going about 80 on the motorways, but I was being passed a lot. At one point, between Dover and London, I was going 100+ easy, and I was still being passed. Must have been a bunch of continental traffic? Lol.

Sticking to Canada, the QEW doesn't have a speed limit. Ontario Provincial Police doesn't do much enforcement and traffic often exceeds 85-90 MPH. Keep in mind that reckless driving there is 50 km/h over and they can take your car when they pull you over.

I thought it was 100km/hr?

Quote from: ukfan758 on February 15, 2016, 04:28:33 PM
I for one would like to see some of the rural interstates and parkways in the western Kentucky increased to 75 or 80mph, that is if the roads are safe enough.

Georgia's I-75 could also use a speed increase to 75 or 80 while keeping the 85mph Super Speeder law in place . That way, drivers won't just go to 90+ and will instead close the speed gap between law abiders and speeders. Currently, you have a small amount of law abiders going 70 and lots of speeders going between 80-85.

I don't think you could reasonably keep the Super Speeder law as-is with an 80 mph speed limit given that Georgia also has the 10 mph buffer on ticketing based on radar enforcement.

That said I'm not sure I-75 traffic would allow a free-flow speed at 75-80 mph during a lot of the day anyway. From Dalton south to Perry traffic makes it hard to lock in at the expanded 70 mph limit a lot of the time even under nominally "free flow" conditions, between the truck volume and drivers who refuse to use cruise control.

Hypothetically, I-16 from Twiggs County east to Pooler, I-20 west of GA 5, and I-20 east of Covington to the Richmond Co line would be better candidates for 80 mph zones based on traffic volumes. Realistically though I'd settle for GDOT being even more aggressive in signing 65 zones on rural four-lanes, including flush median sections like GA 57 through Twiggs County and parts of GA 300.

FYI, there are rumors of Puerto Rico considering 70 mph speed limits for its Autopistas, as well as increasing the truck speed limit to 60 mph.  I found this on Wikipedia, so I don't know if this is true or not.  Apparently the person who added that info is a roadgeek who added has a lot of info on speed limits in different states.

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
It largely mentions I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit; I wonder what other stretches of highways in MD will be getting such?


Is there really much else that could qualify? Most of the state is pretty suburban

Yes.  Most of I-70 between the Baltimore Beltway and Frederick, as well as from I-81 west to the PA state line, are rural enough to easily handle 70 or even 75, as could I-95 north of White Marsh and Route 43.  I-795 could *probably* support 70.  Not sure why it's 60 instead of 65 anyway.

By the way, resurrecting an old sub-thread here -- has anyone seen a 70 speed limit on I-68 (or anywhere in the state for that matter)?  I don't get out to Western Maryland much -- I was last on 68 about April of last year...

Quote from: tckma on March 16, 2016, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 11, 2015, 01:07:32 PM
It largely mentions I-68 (portion(s) of it) getting the 70 mph limit; I wonder what other stretches of highways in MD will be getting such?


Is there really much else that could qualify? Most of the state is pretty suburban

Yes.  Most of I-70 between the Baltimore Beltway and Frederick, as well as from I-81 west to the PA state line, are rural enough to easily handle 70 or even 75, as could I-95 north of White Marsh and Route 43.  I-795 could *probably* support 70.  Not sure why it's 60 instead of 65 anyway.

By the way, resurrecting an old sub-thread here -- has anyone seen a 70 speed limit on I-68 (or anywhere in the state for that matter)?  I don't get out to Western Maryland much -- I was last on 68 about April of last year...

Yes, 70 MPH is posted on nearly all of I-68, with the exception of the stretch between Truck US 220 in LaVale and US 220 North east of Cumberland.

This is a bit old, but Kansas' 80 mph bill is now dead.  It seems there has been a big slowdown of state speed limit increases after several in recent years.

The NMA has an article summarizing all the current ones: https://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limit-roundup-march-2016/

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 24, 2016, 05:19:09 PMThis is a bit old, but Kansas' 80 mph bill is now dead.

Legislative testimony from KDOT and the KHP was very unfavorable.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 04, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
FYI, there are rumors of Puerto Rico considering 70 mph speed limits for its Autopistas, as well as increasing the truck speed limit to 60 mph.  I found this on Wikipedia, so I don't know if this is true or not.  Apparently the person who added that info is a roadgeek who added has a lot of info on speed limits in different states.

That Wikipedia page is awful. The map posts Washington at 75 and Nevada at 80 (even though neither state has any highways posted at those speeds since it was put into their code). The Texas county smorgasbord of speed limits is an eyesore as well.

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on March 27, 2016, 01:59:30 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 04, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
FYI, there are rumors of Puerto Rico considering 70 mph speed limits for its Autopistas, as well as increasing the truck speed limit to 60 mph.  I found this on Wikipedia, so I don't know if this is true or not.  Apparently the person who added that info is a roadgeek who added has a lot of info on speed limits in different states.

That Wikipedia page is awful. The map posts Washington at 75 and Nevada at 80 (even though neither state has any highways posted at those speeds since it was put into their code). The Texas county smorgasbord of speed limits is an eyesore as well.

Since the page is the maximum speed limit permitted in each state, those states are correct, although it should be noted that the max limit isn't actually signed.

Barely visible, it shows DC as 65 mph as well. That isn't correct.

I never understood why someone has to differentiate Texas based on county, since the page is supposed to simple be speed limits by state.

QuoteI never understood why someone has to differentiate Texas based on county, since the page is supposed to simple be speed limits by state.

It made a lot more sense a few years ago, before it was pretty uniformly raised to 75. It's also disingenuous to say the speed limit in Texas is 85..

Quote from: corco on March 27, 2016, 03:07:19 PM

QuoteI never understood why someone has to differentiate Texas based on county, since the page is supposed to simple be speed limits by state.

It made a lot more sense a few years ago, before it was pretty uniformly raised to 75. It's also disingenuous to say the speed limit in Texas is 85..

But it is...even if it's only in a limited area.  Other states have or have had limited stretches of highway at the maximum limit without such notation (ie: MD only has one highway at 70 mph)

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2016, 03:24:03 PM

Quote from: corco on March 27, 2016, 03:07:19 PM

QuoteI never understood why someone has to differentiate Texas based on county, since the page is supposed to simple be speed limits by state.

It made a lot more sense a few years ago, before it was pretty uniformly raised to 75. It's also disingenuous to say the speed limit in Texas is 85..

But it is...even if it's only in a limited area.  Other states have or have had limited stretches of highway at the maximum limit without such notation (ie: MD only has one highway at 70 mph)

By percentage, though - Maryland has a far greater percentage of its road/freeway mileage posted at 70 than Texas at 85. A single 40 mile stretch of toll road in a state the size of Texas isn't enough to say "the speed limit in Texas is 85" without giving really inaccurate information.

Quote from: corco on March 27, 2016, 03:27:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2016, 03:24:03 PM

Quote from: corco on March 27, 2016, 03:07:19 PM

QuoteI never understood why someone has to differentiate Texas based on county, since the page is supposed to simple be speed limits by state.

It made a lot more sense a few years ago, before it was pretty uniformly raised to 75. It's also disingenuous to say the speed limit in Texas is 85..

But it is...even if it's only in a limited area.  Other states have or have had limited stretches of highway at the maximum limit without such notation (ie: MD only has one highway at 70 mph)

By percentage, though - Maryland has a far greater percentage of its road/freeway mileage posted at 70 than Texas at 85. A single 40 mile stretch of toll road in a state the size of Texas isn't enough to say "the speed limit in Texas is 85" without giving really inaccurate information.

I agree. Most states have relatively uniform upper "rural" limits or are in the process of implementing them (i.e. Pennsylvania). Texas doesn't because the 80 and 85 zones are very limited with the limits defined by county.

Perhaps change Texas to a striped color (indicating 75/80/85)?

Kind of similar to what this site (https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-attud/maps/divided-2lane-2.gif) did almost 20 years ago.

Frankly, I think indicating maximum speed limits through map coloring is a bit of a hopeless project because of the complexities of individual state laws.  In Kansas, for example, the statutes say plainly that the maximum rural speed limit off KDOT infrastructure is 55 MPH.  But a separate clause allows 65 on county and township roads; in practice this is often used to retain 65 on state highways returned to county maintenance (e.g. former K-14 between Arlington and the K-96 junction south of Lyon), but I know of at least one example (Road AA in Kearny County, just east of Deerfield) that is unlikely to have been part of the state highway system.  So what color do you use to indicate the maximum speed limit on rural county roads in Kansas:  the 55 color or the 65 color?

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 07:01:54 PM
Sticking to Canada, the QEW doesn't have a speed limit. Ontario Provincial Police doesn't do much enforcement and traffic often exceeds 85-90 MPH.

High end operating speed on the QEW between Hamilton and St. Catharines is typically 120-125 km/h at best. The rest operates a fair bit slower, given its tighter design speed.
Only a very few outliers are really pushing more than than 130 km/h.

Quote from: Buffaboy on February 23, 2016, 07:21:25 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 07:01:54 PM
Keep in mind that reckless driving there is 50 km/h over and they can take your car when they pull you over.

I thought it was 100km/hr?

50 km/h over the limit, which results in a 7 day licence suspension, 7 day impounding of the car , a fine of $2,000-$10,000, plus extra fees (towing, licence reinstatement, court costs, etc).

Quote from: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 07:01:54 PM
Sticking to Canada, the QEW doesn't have a speed limit. Ontario Provincial Police doesn't do much enforcement and traffic often exceeds 85-90 MPH. Keep in mind that reckless driving there is 50 km/h over and they can take your car when they pull you over.

Pretty sure the last time I was up in that area regularly (late 2004 to early 2006), the QEW had a posted speed limit of 100 km/h.  Of course, traffic seemed to flow freely at around 80-85 MPH, whereas 100 km/h == 62 MPH.  Granted this was 10 years ago; they may have removed the limit, but I doubt it.

I was under the impression that 100 km/h was a federal highway speed limit across Canada (similar to how we had 55 MPH with the MSL).  Though, I recall large stretches of the Trans-Canada through northern Ontario had a posted speed limit of 90 km/h, so who knows.  I've only ever been to three provinces anyway.

Quote from: tckma on March 31, 2016, 06:12:01 PM
I was under the impression that 100 km/h was a federal highway speed limit across Canada (similar to how we had 55 MPH with the MSL).  Though, I recall large stretches of the Trans-Canada through northern Ontario had a posted speed limit of 90 km/h, so who knows.  I've only ever been to three provinces anyway.

For the most part, Canada's freeways are posted at either 100 km/h or 110 km/h, though British Columbia posts 120 km/h, effective 2014.

There are some provinces with limits of 110 and BC has 120, so if there was a federal limit (which seems unlikely, as Canada's federal government doesn't micro manage nearly as much as the US does), there isn't one now.  Ontario's 100 kph limit WAS established for the same reasons as NMSL, however.

Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2016, 07:22:21 PM
There are some provinces with limits of 110 and BC has 120, so if there was a federal limit (which seems unlikely, as Canada's federal government doesn't micro manage nearly as much as the US does), there isn't one now.  Ontario's 100 kph limit WAS established for the same reasons as NMSL, however.

No federal limit, but yes, to borrow from Mayor Quimby, back in the 1970s the provinces saw which way the wind was blowing and let it not be said that they do not also blow.

I saw a report today that New York's new budget bill includes a provision to increase the speed limit to 80 across the state. Roadways getting the new 80 mph limit include the Thruway between Exits 15 and 49 and west of 56, I-86 west of Corning, I-81 north of Syracuse, and I-87 north of Exit 12.

Quote from: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
I-87 north of Exit 12.

I assume you mean Northway exit 12, rather than Thruway exit 12 or Major Deegan exit 12?  (yet another argument for mileage-based exit numbering...)

Quote from: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
I saw a report today that New York's new budget bill includes a provision to increase the speed limit to 80 across the state. Roadways getting the new 80 mph limit include the Thruway between Exits 15 and 49 and west of 56, I-86 west of Corning, I-81 north of Syracuse, and I-87 north of Exit 12.

Wow, 65 straight to 80.  That is a huge increase.

It's bill number 0401 if you want to read about the proposal.  Interesting read, although doing some research it seems to pop up every year in some form or another.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2016, 12:22:00 PM
It's bill number 0401 if you want to read about the proposal.  Interesting read, although doing some research it seems to pop up every year in some form or another.

Sure looked like April Fool to me.

Yesterday, I-70 was re-signed at 70 MPH between MD-144 in Frederick and US-29 in Ellicott City.  I went to work in the morning (MD-97 to US-29 on I-70) and it was 65, and when I drove home (US-29 to MD-97) it was 70.  No pomp and circumstance, no fanfare, just the signage was silently changed at some point yesterday.  I looked back and saw the other side was re-signed as well.

Quote from: tckma on April 05, 2016, 11:56:21 AM
Yesterday, I-70 was re-signed at 70 MPH between MD-144 in Frederick and US-29 in Ellicott City.  I went to work in the morning (MD-97 to US-29 on I-70) and it was 65, and when I drove home (US-29 to MD-97) it was 70.  No pomp and circumstance, no fanfare, just the signage was silently changed at some point yesterday.  I looked back and saw the other side was re-signed as well.

SHA did a Facebook post in the mid-afternoon and a few of the news agencies reported on it from what I saw. In this day and age, that's probably all you need-enough people use Facebook and Twitter that spreading it over social media will get almost everyone.

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/04/a_70mph_speed_limit_in_nj_not_so_fast_state_says.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

"A 70 mph speed limit in N.J.? Not so fast, state says"

I'm not so sure the title is correct.  The reporter asked the various toll and NJDOT agencies about increasing the speed limit.  The issue is, they can't just increase the limit without the law in place.  Take this quote for example: "The Turnpike Authority believes the current speed limits on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway are appropriate for those roadways," said Tom Feeney, a spokesman. "There is no active consideration being given to raising them."

There's probably no active consideration being given because there's no reason to.  The law would have to be revised first.  Heck, the law would need to be introduced, voted on, and passed first!  I'm sure if 70 mph (or 85th percentile speeds) were permitted, you would suddenly find a lot of positive consideration given to raising the speed limit!

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 01, 2016, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
I saw a report today that New York's new budget bill includes a provision to increase the speed limit to 80 across the state. Roadways getting the new 80 mph limit include the Thruway between Exits 15 and 49 and west of 56, I-86 west of Corning, I-81 north of Syracuse, and I-87 north of Exit 12.

Wow, 65 straight to 80.  That is a huge increase.

80 has been the de facto limit on the Thruway for many years.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2016, 07:56:41 AM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on February 18, 2016, 07:46:09 AM

Quote
Before NMSL, it was 70 here.

It was 65 right before the 1973 oil embargo began. I remember hearing that NYDOT put the 65 signs into storage and put them back up when they raised the limit in 1995.

The same ones?  Wouldn't they have been, well, old?  And without updated reflectivity standards?

Has anyone else noticed that the speed limit signs on Santa Ana freeway in south LA county were so old, that they looked like all they did was remove a five overlay to get the signs back to 65 after the NMSL was repealed. You could see residue left from overlay

Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on April 10, 2016, 11:45:15 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 01, 2016, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
I saw a report today that New York's new budget bill includes a provision to increase the speed limit to 80 across the state. Roadways getting the new 80 mph limit include the Thruway between Exits 15 and 49 and west of 56, I-86 west of Corning, I-81 north of Syracuse, and I-87 north of Exit 12.

Wow, 65 straight to 80.  That is a huge increase.

80 has been the de facto limit on the Thruway for many years.

Sorta.  A few years ago, a representative from State Police Troop T stated that the average speed that was ticketed on the Thruway was 83.  So, I suppose you'd have to see the distribution to see how many tickets were handed out for 80 or lower.

Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:28:16 PM

Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on April 10, 2016, 11:45:15 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 01, 2016, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
I saw a report today that New York's new budget bill includes a provision to increase the speed limit to 80 across the state. Roadways getting the new 80 mph limit include the Thruway between Exits 15 and 49 and west of 56, I-86 west of Corning, I-81 north of Syracuse, and I-87 north of Exit 12.

Wow, 65 straight to 80.  That is a huge increase.

80 has been the de facto limit on the Thruway for many years.

Sorta.  A few years ago, a representative from State Police Troop T stated that the average speed that was ticketed on the Thruway was 83.  So, I suppose you'd have to see the distribution to see how many tickets were handed out for 80 or lower.

Depends on where. Speeds west of Albany tend to be lower than those south of Albany. Saturday, I was in a line of cars going over 80 and the guy who got pulled over blew past us, probably going at least 90.

Washington State is seeking public input regarding an increase from 70 to 75 on a roughly 100 mile stretch of I-90 between George and the Spokane County line. According to the press release, the state has been studying an increase for some time. The Eastern Washington legislators have been pushing the DOT for an increase along I-90 first before an increase anywhere else. I suspect in good time, the current stretches of 70 will be raised to 75.

http://goo.gl/amVeuW

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 01:54:48 PM
Washington State is seeking public input regarding an increase from 70 to 75 on a roughly 100 mile stretch of I-90 between George and the Spokane County line. According to the press release, the state has been studying an increase for some time. The Eastern Washington legislators have been pushing the DOT for an increase along I-90 first before an increase anywhere else. I suspect in good time, the current stretches of 70 will be raised to 75.

http://goo.gl/amVeuW

Not surprising. It's quite rural and not too mountainous. I do have a concern about the truck speed limit remaining 60, though.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a law yesterday that removes the statutory speed limit cap, instead allowing ODOT and OTA to post whatever speed limits they feel appropriate following a speed study. Previously, turnpikes were capped at 75 MPH, four-lane divided roads at 70, and two-lane roads at 65.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 10, 2016, 02:23:18 AM
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a law yesterday that removes the statutory speed limit cap, instead allowing ODOT and OTA to post whatever speed limits they feel appropriate following a speed study. Previously, turnpikes were capped at 75 MPH, four-lane divided roads at 70, and two-lane roads at 65.

So if ODOT/OTA felt, for example, an 85 mph speed limit were appropriate for certain stretches, they would be free to post said limit? How many other states are setup like this? I think even Texas has a cap of 85.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2016, 12:48:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 10, 2016, 02:23:18 AM
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a law yesterday that removes the statutory speed limit cap, instead allowing ODOT and OTA to post whatever speed limits they feel appropriate following a speed study. Previously, turnpikes were capped at 75 MPH, four-lane divided roads at 70, and two-lane roads at 65.

So if ODOT/OTA felt, for example, an 85 mph speed limit were appropriate for certain stretches, they would be free to post said limit? How many other states are setup like this? I think even Texas has a cap of 85.

I don't think any other state has a setup like this, although it's been talked about by some states. 

While they would be free to post any speed limit they deem appropriate, you know that they will get some flack from the State Police, legislators, the public, etc, if they wanted to post what some feel is too high of a limit.  They may be able to get away with 80 in some areas, but I'm sure even if a road would be appropriate at 85 mph, you're not going to see it posted...at least until people are comfortable with 80 several years down the road...

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2016, 12:54:14 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2016, 12:48:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 10, 2016, 02:23:18 AM
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a law yesterday that removes the statutory speed limit cap, instead allowing ODOT and OTA to post whatever speed limits they feel appropriate following a speed study. Previously, turnpikes were capped at 75 MPH, four-lane divided roads at 70, and two-lane roads at 65.

So if ODOT/OTA felt, for example, an 85 mph speed limit were appropriate for certain stretches, they would be free to post said limit? How many other states are setup like this? I think even Texas has a cap of 85.

I don't think any other state has a setup like this, although it's been talked about by some states. 

While they would be free to post any speed limit they deem appropriate, you know that they will get some flack from the State Police, legislators, the public, etc, if they wanted to post what some feel is too high of a limit.  They may be able to get away with 80 in some areas, but I'm sure even if a road would be appropriate at 85 mph, you're not going to see it posted...at least until people are comfortable with 80 several years down the road...

Certainly they'd step-up the limit over time, rather than an immediate 10 mph bump. I'm just a little staggered that a DOT has complete control over speed limits. This really is how it ought to be. Politicians shouldn't be deciding speed limits.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2016, 01:03:21 PM
I'm just a little staggered that a DOT has complete control over speed limits. This really is how it ought to be. Politicians shouldn't be deciding speed limits.

Tell that to the Cuomo family. Uncle Mario was the reason New York took so long to increase above 55 (it was one of Pataki's first actions in office) and his son wants to lower stuff back to 55 (or lower in some places). Now that 70 mph limits literally touch the state line on the south (and might do so to the east if the Mass Pike ever goes up like has been discussed), we might get more of a push.

Aside from NY 198 and the default speed limit in NYC, has there been anything stated on that?  All I could find is this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3109330/posts

Not exactly authoritative.

In any case, they had better not lower the limit.  Even 65 feels painfully slow.

Quote from: vdeane on May 10, 2016, 05:55:29 PM
Aside from NY 198 and the default speed limit in NYC, has there been anything stated on that?  All I could find is this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3109330/posts

Not exactly authoritative.

In any case, they had better not lower the limit.  Even 65 feels painfully slow.

Not to turn this thread into a political flame fest but if the above proposal is indeed true; registered voters in NY had a chance nearly 2 years ago to send Gov. Cuomo packing but didn't.  Elections (including non-participation in such) have consequences, folks.

Nonetheless, it is my understanding that such would need to be approved by the State Legislature prior to Cuomo signing such.  I would suggest that every NY resident, especially registered voters, contact their State Rep. & State Senator and let your voice be heard on this matter.  Some of these individuals may be up for re-election this coming November (the Presidency isn't the only race on the ballot this fall).  If there's enough blowback from the public; Gov. Cuomo & his minions will be forced to table such a plan.

Of course, with the gerrymandering, New York has one of the highest incumbent win rates in Albany. Hasn't dropped under 90% in several decades. That's on my long list of things to send my assemblyman and state senator and, now that I am licensed and have letters after my name, they can't write me off as easily. Pretty hard to tell a licensed civil engineer specializing in transportation that he's wrong about readily-available statistics and guidelines.

The real issue in New York is that, in most of the state, the speed limit the cops enforce is a good 10-15+ above posted except in small towns. The posted speed limit really doesn't mean much in most places.

The comment about elections should ring true to all of us who remember the NMSL. I think it's reasonable to say that if the Republicans hadn't taken control of Congress in 1994, the speed limit repeal would not have been included in the 1995 highway-funding bill. Clinton wasn't too happy about it, either, but said the funding was more important.

Cross-posting this from the Washington-specific thread on speed limits:

---

While 75 is still on the table, the most obvious section of freeway in the state (I-90 in Eastern Washington) will not qualify for the increased limit. From KREM2 - Spokane (http://goo.gl/7dlPPO):

Quote
The Washington state Department of Transportation, Washington State Patrol and Washington Traffic Safety Commission announced Wednesday they have decided against the proposal because of safety concerns.

Quote
They found the increased risks and costs associated with the proposed change far outweighed the projected time savings. Their analysis predicted an additional 1.27 fatal or serious crashes annually if the speed limit was raised. A higher speed limit also would bring an estimated $8.3 million in additional annual safety costs.

1.27 :spin:

And $8.3mil towards additional annual safety costs? I'm definitely interested to see the official press release. What in the world would that be going towards?

So they don't want to allow people to save time on millions of journeys because it might cause 6 more accidents over 5 years? That's asinine.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2016, 11:40:43 PM
So they don't want to allow people to save time on millions of journeys because it might cause 6 more accidents over 5 years? That's asinine.

Agreed. Especially when the number of collisions on Washington's public roads has been decreasing since records began, even though limits are higher now than ever before.

Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:28:16 PM

Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on April 10, 2016, 11:45:15 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 01, 2016, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: cl94 on April 01, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
I saw a report today that New York's new budget bill includes a provision to increase the speed limit to 80 across the state. Roadways getting the new 80 mph limit include the Thruway between Exits 15 and 49 and west of 56, I-86 west of Corning, I-81 north of Syracuse, and I-87 north of Exit 12.

Wow, 65 straight to 80.  That is a huge increase.

80 has been the de facto limit on the Thruway for many years.

Sorta.  A few years ago, a representative from State Police Troop T stated that the average speed that was ticketed on the Thruway was 83.  So, I suppose you'd have to see the distribution to see how many tickets were handed out for 80 or lower.

I drove commercially for 10 years in Southern NY, the only times l was stopped was if I were going 80+, and in the main, I was moving with the flow of traffic in the nearside lane, not overtaking.

XT1585

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2016, 11:40:43 PM
So they don't want to allow people to save time on millions of journeys because it might cause 6 more accidents over 5 years? That's asinine.

A good question to ask is how many serious  accidents are there right now...

A 15 mile stretch of US-95 north of Coeur D'Alene, ID will be raised from 65 to 70 MPH. As far as I know, this will be the first non-interstate posted above 65 in Idaho. How Oregon beat them to that, I have no idea :P

http://cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_3ab19d7d-9299-5976-a77a-634c5b12eb11.html

Looks like Michigan's 80 mph bill has been revived.

Interestingly, I am a bit surprised that in 2016 not a single state has introduced a bill to raise their statewide maximum speed limits.  I would have expected that North Dakota or New Mexico would have introduced 80 mph bills this year, but that hasn't happened.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 14, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
Interestingly, I am a bit surprised that in 2016 not a single state has introduced a bill to raise their statewide maximum speed limits.  I would have expected that North Dakota or New Mexico would have introduced 80 mph bills this year, but that hasn't happened.

Vision Zero has grabbed this nation by the balls. As the initiative becomes a state-level issue, speed limit increases will prove more difficult.

Frankly, I am more interested in higher speed limits on rural two-lane roads (where justified by geometry) than I am in 80 or even higher on rural freeways.  When I was on my Lake Superior trip, having to adhere to the 55 MPH ceiling along M-28 and US 2 in Michigan and Wisconsin proved to be a bit of a drag.  When I ventured away from these two highly improved highways, it also meant there was no clear signal as to whether a given road had less forgiving geometry (M-123 between Paradise and Newberry, for example, is pretty twisty).

Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2016, 06:44:33 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 14, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
Interestingly, I am a bit surprised that in 2016 not a single state has introduced a bill to raise their statewide maximum speed limits.  I would have expected that North Dakota or New Mexico would have introduced 80 mph bills this year, but that hasn't happened.

Vision Zero has grabbed this nation by the balls. As the initiative becomes a state-level issue, speed limit increases will prove more difficult.

Also neither ND or NM are at the point in their legislative cycle that they're introducing bills. The ND legislature only convenes in odd numbered years.  Wait until January.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 14, 2016, 09:27:48 PM
Frankly, I am more interested in higher speed limits on rural two-lane roads (where justified by geometry) than I am in 80 or even higher on rural freeways.  When I was on my Lake Superior trip, having to adhere to the 55 MPH ceiling along M-28 and US 2 in Michigan and Wisconsin proved to be a bit of a drag.  When I ventured away from these two highly improved highways, it also meant there was no clear signal as to whether a given road had less forgiving geometry (M-123 between Paradise and Newberry, for example, is pretty twisty).

This. While New York's freeway speed limit needs to go to 70-75, the 55 restriction placed on all surface roads and parkways as well as anything downstate annoys the hell out of me. The Taconic is signed at 55 for the entire length, while most could easily be at least 60. Much of US 20 could safely be taken at 60 or more and again, 55. The thing about New York's 55 zones is that the ones on surface roads aren't typically enforced.

Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2016, 09:32:17 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 14, 2016, 09:27:48 PM
Frankly, I am more interested in higher speed limits on rural two-lane roads (where justified by geometry) than I am in 80 or even higher on rural freeways.  When I was on my Lake Superior trip, having to adhere to the 55 MPH ceiling along M-28 and US 2 in Michigan and Wisconsin proved to be a bit of a drag.  When I ventured away from these two highly improved highways, it also meant there was no clear signal as to whether a given road had less forgiving geometry (M-123 between Paradise and Newberry, for example, is pretty twisty).

This. While New York's freeway speed limit needs to go to 70-75, the 55 restriction placed on all surface roads and parkways as well as anything downstate annoys the hell out of me. The Taconic is signed at 55 for the entire length, while most could easily be at least 60. Much of US 20 could safely be taken at 60 or more and again, 55. The thing about New York's 55 zones is that the ones on surface roads aren't typically enforced.

Indeed.  Having rural interstates increased from 65 to 70 in MD last year was a good move.  However, in rural areas, speed limits are still too low.  Portions of MD-140 near my house that I typically take at 65-70 are signed at 55.  Similarly, the road I live on is 30, when I easily and frequently take it at 50 (with some exceptions such as a sharp curve near my house and through a short portion of what Massachusetts would call a "Thickly Settled" area).

Speaking of Massachusetts, MA-2 and MA-9 in the western part of the state are signed at 50 when they can easily be taken at 60-65 (or so I thought when I lived up in MA).  Nothing in MA that is a surface road is ever signed above 50 unless it's a multi-lane divided highway -- maybe that Super-2 portion of MA-2, I don't remember.

New York (where I grew up and where I took my road test -- on Lawn Guyland which is well downstate), defaults to 55.  Their driver's manual, in fact, even says to assume 55 if the SL is not posted (or at least it did in late 1994 when I got my learner's permit).  I went to college in the Finger Lakes region, where several roads such as NY-79, NY-96, NY-96A, NY-96B, NY-89, NY-13, and NY-34 can definitely be taken at higher speeds.  Same with US-20.

Quote from: tckma on November 16, 2016, 11:07:02 AMNothing in MA that is a surface road is ever signed above 50 unless it's a multi-lane divided highway -- maybe that Super-2 portion of MA-2, I don't remember

The Super-2 portion of MA 2 has a posted speed limit of 55.

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 16, 2016, 11:56:38 AM

Quote from: tckma on November 16, 2016, 11:07:02 AMNothing in MA that is a surface road is ever signed above 50 unless it's a multi-lane divided highway -- maybe that Super-2 portion of MA-2, I don't remember

The Super-2 portion of MA 2 has a posted speed limit of 55.

We've mentioned earlier that a bunch of stuff in Western Massachusetts is 55. A good portion of US 7, for example.

Quote from: tckma on November 16, 2016, 11:07:02 AM
New York (where I grew up and where I took my road test -- on Lawn Guyland which is well downstate), defaults to 55.  Their driver's manual, in fact, even says to assume 55 if the SL is not posted (or at least it did in late 1994 when I got my learner's permit).  I went to college in the Finger Lakes region, where several roads such as NY-79, NY-96, NY-96A, NY-96B, NY-89, NY-13, and NY-34 can definitely be taken at higher speeds.  Same with US-20.

It still does. Other than places like Erie County which post everything lower for the ticket revenue, rural roads are generally 55 unless there are a decent amount of buildings. That being said, the 55 is rarely enforced and the speed you can safely do ranges from 20 to over 70. NY 218 along Storm King Mountain? 55. US 44/NY 55 through the hairpin curve? 55.

Looks like Michigan has signed its 75 mph bill (lowered from 80 mph) into law:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/01/05/speed-limits/96200216/

And looks like another state is proposing 80 mph speed limits, and that state is North Dakota, which was one of the two states that I was predicting (the other being New Mexico):
http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/ND-interstates-could-soon-have-higher-speed-limits-408669845.html

Meanwhile, Mississippi and Missouri have remained quiet about their bills.

Washington is attempting to pull an Oregon; a lawmaker from Republic wants to see a 75 mph limit (https://goo.gl/LhpxPo) wrote into law. It would raise the limit along certain stretches of 90 in Eastern Washington.

While I'm not the biggest fan of letting lawmakers decide speed limits, I do feel like a 75 mph limit is appropriate in Eastern Washington (this side of 80 mph, at least). WSDOT made the mistake last time around of consulting with the state patrol and transport commission, people who are as equally unqualified to decide speed limits as lawmakers. I believe that "vision zero" was to blame for WSDOT's decision to not increase the limit to 75 last year.

Ultimately though, I doubt the governor would sign the bill (if it passed the house, the senate, and the transport committee before him), especially when the DOT already warned against an increase (as much as I disagree with that decision).

Indiana is proposing a bill that would increase the truck speed limit on rural and urban interstates (currently 65 in rural areas, 60 in urban areas) to the same speed limit as cars (70 in rural areas, 65 in urban areas).  That would end the speed limit separation by 5 mph... :clap: :clap: :clap:

Articles:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/from-roundabouts-to-pets-what-new-laws-might-indiana-pass/article_97c5f167-0af5-5ce5-a449-8200a2fc0421.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-speed-up-trucks-st-0112-20170112-story.html

Bill increasing speed limit on many ND roads rejected by lawmakers

http://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/4210783-bill-increasing-speed-limit-many-nd-roads-rejected-lawmakers

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 04, 2017, 12:54:33 AM
Bill increasing speed limit on many ND roads rejected by lawmakers

http://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/4210783-bill-increasing-speed-limit-many-nd-roads-rejected-lawmakers (http://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/4210783-bill-increasing-speed-limit-many-nd-roads-rejected-lawmakers)

If you read the article, it isn't totally dead yet, only the bill that would have also increased the speed limit on other types of roads by 5 mph.  There is another bill that would increase the speed limit on the Interstates only.

Although a bill creating an 80 mph maximum speed limit in Nevada was passed by the 2015 legislature, was signed by Gov. Sandoval and took effect on 10/1/2015, the highest posted speed limit on I-80 remains 75 mph.  Raising the posted limit is at the discretion of NDOT, NDOT answers to Sandoval and I don't think Sandoval wants the posted limit raised in spite of signing that as part of the legislative give and take.

The law did make one change:  prior to 10/1/2015, 75 mph was a hard limit.  Now, if you're stopped for doing up to 80 mph in a 75 mph zone, the maximum punishment is a $25 fine with no points charged against your driving record.  So the de facto speed limit on most of I-80 could be said to be 80 mph, or it could be viewed as a $25 toll road where the toll is very unlikely to be charged.

I'm not aware of any proposal in the upcoming 2017 legislature to take the decision out of NDOT's hands and require the posting of 80 mph signs, so I'd guess the next move if any will be by whomever is elected governor in November 2018.

If Sandoval didn't want the limit to go to 80, why didn't he veto the bill?  Was he hoping everybody would just forget the speed limits were supposed to go up instead of blaming him for blocking it?

It's part of the legislative sausage-making.  The rural legislators were pushing for the 80 mph limit.  Meanwhile, Sandoval wanted business taxes increased to support education funding and was having a hard time getting members of his own party to go along.  So in the simplest terms, I'll sign your speed limit bill which really does raise the effective limit to a wink-wink 80 mph even though the signs say 75, and you hold your nose and vote for my education program.

I don't know for a fact that NDOT won't raise the signed limit to 80 in the next couple years.  Their last public comment was that they were doing speed limit safety studies or some such.  It seems like a dormant issue though.

No speed limits will be going up in North Dakota any time soon.
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/4217982-lawmakers-put-brake-speed-limit-changes-interstates-nd

Remember that Illinois raised the speed limit to 70 from 65 three years ago?  Well, three years later, Illinois wanted to raise the speed to 75...

Articles:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-oberweis-speed-limit-0217-chicago-inc-20170216-story.html

http://foxillinois.com/news/local/possible-speed-limit-increase-on-majority-of-illinois-interstates

Back in Illinois's 65-mph days, on many occasions I drove past a cop while doing more than 75 and not once got chased down.  Once back in the early 00s, I was doing 78 mph in the middle of the night on I-88 and had an officer barely crawl past me at 79 or 80 mph; he never batted an eye.  When the highway patrol would run a motorcycle game on I-57 downstate, they would often ticket people for less than that, but I always got wind of those games.

The enforcement point in the majority of the state for the majority of time seemed to be 80 mph.  So I don't really see how an increase to 75 mph is really going to change all that much, except that the signs will more closely resemble reality.

Quote from: kphoger on February 20, 2017, 11:01:35 AM
Back in Illinois's 65-mph days, on many occasions I drove past a cop while doing more than 75 and not once got chased down.  Once back in the early 00s, I was doing 78 mph in the middle of the night on I-88 and had an officer barely crawl past me at 79 or 80 mph; he never batted an eye.  When the highway patrol would run a motorcycle game on I-57 downstate, they would often ticket people for less than that, but I always got wind of those games.

The enforcement point in the majority of the state for the majority of time seemed to be 80 mph.  So I don't really see how an increase to 75 mph is really going to change all that much, except that the signs will more closely resemble reality.

If the enforcement point is 80, the signed speed limit should not be 70 if signing at 75 is allowed.

It's also safer for the speed limit to be closer to the average speed. The majority of people drive at the speed they want, but a small percentage try to go the speed limit, creating a large difference in speeds, and difference is speed is more dangerous than the speed itself. Also, large speed differences can increase congestion.

Quote from: 1 on February 20, 2017, 11:32:05 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 20, 2017, 11:01:35 AM
Back in Illinois's 65-mph days, on many occasions I drove past a cop while doing more than 75 and not once got chased down.  Once back in the early 00s, I was doing 78 mph in the middle of the night on I-88 and had an officer barely crawl past me at 79 or 80 mph; he never batted an eye.  When the highway patrol would run a motorcycle game on I-57 downstate, they would often ticket people for less than that, but I always got wind of those games.

The enforcement point in the majority of the state for the majority of time seemed to be 80 mph.  So I don't really see how an increase to 75 mph is really going to change all that much, except that the signs will more closely resemble reality.

If the enforcement point is 80, the signed speed limit should not be 70 if signing at 75 is allowed.

It's also safer for the speed limit to be closer to the average speed. The majority of people drive at the speed they want, but a small percentage try to go the speed limit, creating a large difference in speeds, and difference is speed is more dangerous than the speed itself. Also, large speed differences can increase congestion.

In my experience, most people in Illinois drive around 70 to 75 mph on the open Interstate.  Average speed on the two-lane roads varies widely by region.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 19, 2017, 04:09:29 PM
Remember that Illinois raised the speed limit to 70 from 65 three years ago?  Well, three years later, Illinois wanted to raise the speed to 75...

Articles:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-oberweis-speed-limit-0217-chicago-inc-20170216-story.html

http://foxillinois.com/news/local/possible-speed-limit-increase-on-majority-of-illinois-interstates

and get rid of the split truck / car bs. Also all toll roads 70-75.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 19, 2017, 04:09:29 PM
Remember that Illinois raised the speed limit to 70 from 65 three years ago?  Well, three years later, Illinois wanted to raise the speed to 75...

Maybe they will do something about the stretches that are eligible for 70 yet are remaining at 65 as well (I-90 from I-39 to the Elgin area for example).

Looks like Iowa might go to 75.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/bill-aims-to-raise-iowa-interstate-speed-limit-to-75-mph-20170221

Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2017, 06:46:33 PM
Looks like Iowa might go to 75.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/bill-aims-to-raise-iowa-interstate-speed-limit-to-75-mph-20170221 (http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/bill-aims-to-raise-iowa-interstate-speed-limit-to-75-mph-20170221)

Looks like this is the second attempt within the past two years, since a previous bill was introduced in 2015 but died last year.

Pretty much everyone already goes 75-80 in Iowa, depending on the day.

Arkansas raising the speed limit on the rural interstates to 75 mph passes through the House and will go to the Senate...  :clap: :clap: :clap:

Articles:
http://www.myarklamiss.com/news/local-news/arkansas-bill-to-raise-speed-limit-passes-house-moves-to-senate/674758887
http://katv.com/news/local/arkansas-house-wants-to-increase-speed-limit-to-75-mph

To my surprise, West Virginia has introduced an 80 mph bill.  They aren't even currently 75 mph.  If this passes, I wonder if this will lead to neighboring Virginia to consider raising its reckless driving threshold.


http://www.dominionpost.com/Speed-limit-bill-intro--duced-in

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 20, 2017, 01:23:33 AM
To my surprise, West Virginia has introduced an 80 mph bill.  They aren't even currently 75 mph.  If this passes, I wonder if this will lead to neighboring Virginia to consider raising its reckless driving threshold.

Anyone know if West Virginia only posts speed limits in blocks of ten, sort of like the UK?

Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2017, 01:32:41 AM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 20, 2017, 01:23:33 AM
To my surprise, West Virginia has introduced an 80 mph bill.  They aren't even currently 75 mph.  If this passes, I wonder if this will lead to neighboring Virginia to consider raising its reckless driving threshold.

Anyone know if West Virginia only posts speed limits in blocks of ten, sort of like the UK?

They do not. I can think of multiple West Virginia roads I've driven with 65-mph speed limits.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 20, 2017, 01:23:33 AM

To my surprise, West Virginia has introduced an 80 mph bill.  They aren't even currently 75 mph.  If this passes, I wonder if this will lead to neighboring Virginia to consider raising its reckless driving threshold.


http://www.dominionpost.com/Speed-limit-bill-intro--duced-in

Why would Virginia care what West Virginia does?

If every state cared about their neighboring state, we would all have the same speed limit...and really, all the laws and signage and stuff would be the same from state to state.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 20, 2017, 01:23:33 AM

To my surprise, West Virginia has introduced an 80 mph bill.  They aren't even currently 75 mph.  If this passes, I wonder if this will lead to neighboring Virginia to consider raising its reckless driving threshold.


http://www.dominionpost.com/Speed-limit-bill-intro--duced-in

The 80mph bill isn't going anywhere. It's really poorly written, requiring 80mph on all Interstates and 4-lane highways (like the ARC corridors) outside of city limits without any exceptions for engineering issues. It's also sponsored by two back-benchers.

The item to watch is the House resolution asking the DOH commissioner to study 75mph on Interstates.

I can't imagine driving the most crooked parts of I-79 and the Turnpike at very much more than 80. 

W.Va. House passes resolution to increase speed limit to 75 mph

http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/W-Va-House-passes-resolution-to-increase-speed-limit-to-75-mph--418690193.html

So are they likely to post 75 anywhere?

I did find the following quotation amusing. Seems to me the guy has an easy solution: Don't drive 10 over the limit, dumbass!

Quote"If it goes up five, and I go 10 over, I'm losing an additional three to four miles per gallon on my vehicle," Toscano said. "I'm going to be spending more money on gas and wear and tear on my vehicle, and it's just not worth it."

Quote
Walters says increasing the speed limit by 5 mph will not only help drivers get from point A to point B faster, but will also help the state financially.

"Right now, we average 24.7 miles per gallon and going 75 would reduce that to 22.9, so we calculated the increase in gas sales and found out the increase in the gas sales tax would be $7.4 million," Walters said.

I don't think I've ever seen that reason for a speed limit increase before.

I remember when Texas first posted 80-mph limits, some people made the usual objection to "using more gas" and the DOT replied they don't mind if people want to spend more on gas taxes.

Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2017, 12:41:44 PM

Quote
Walters says increasing the speed limit by 5 mph will not only help drivers get from point A to point B faster, but will also help the state financially.

"Right now, we average 24.7 miles per gallon and going 75 would reduce that to 22.9, so we calculated the increase in gas sales and found out the increase in the gas sales tax would be $7.4 million," Walters said.

I don't think I've ever seen that reason for a speed limit increase before.

I'll take it. Heck, the people pushing for NY's limit to increase should use that logic. It would do wonders for funding NYSDOT, broke county governments and the MTA.

$7.4m more a year?  That is a pittance.

Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2017, 09:47:14 PM
$7.4m more a year?  That is a pittance.

Ehh, I don't know. $7.4 million here, $7.4 million there...pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 15, 2017, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2017, 09:47:14 PM
$7.4m more a year?  That is a pittance.

Ehh, I don't know. $7.4 million here, $7.4 million there...pretty soon it adds up to real money.

In one year, it's a pittance.  Up here in NY, that'd pay for one very small bridge rehab or an average band-aid paving job (two-lane).  So, let's say that down in WV, they get twice for their buck than we do up here.  Anyway you cut it, given the costs of transportation improvements, it's a pittance.

So are they likely to post 75 anywhere?

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2017, 02:39:34 PM
So are they likely to post 75 anywhere?

At quick glance, the only areas I see where it might work for a longer distance is on 64 between Barboursville and Scary as well as Elton and Lewisburg.

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 15, 2017, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2017, 09:47:14 PM
$7.4m more a year?  That is a pittance.

Ehh, I don't know. $7.4 million here, $7.4 million there...pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Where's the other $7.4 million coming from?   

In reality, it is small dollars on the grand scale of everything.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2017, 11:08:52 AM

Quote from: slorydn1 on April 15, 2017, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2017, 09:47:14 PM
$7.4m more a year?  That is a pittance.

Ehh, I don't know. $7.4 million here, $7.4 million there...pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Where's the other $7.4 million coming from?   

In reality, it is small dollars on the grand scale of everything.

Assuming we're talking about a total of 1 million cars affected (probably close enough for WV 1.85 M population) that boils down to 3 extra gallons of gas a year.
Or, looking from the other side, if we're talking about 3 million gallons extra due to 24.7 -> 22.9 MPG, that means something like total of 1700  million total highway miles, or 1000 annual highway miles per state resident. Probably about right...

Nevada's 80 mph maximum speed limit, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2015, is finally being implemented as soon as next week (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/884/395) on a 125-mile stretch on I-80.

QuoteThe Nevada Department of Transportation will raise the maximum speed limit from 75 to 80 mph on sections of Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca.

Beginning as early as May 8, roughly 30 new speed limit signs will be installed with the 80 mph speed limit on Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca, excluding a section of interstate through Lovelock.

While this part does pertain to certain grades between Winnemucca and the Utah border, there are long stretches out there where 80 mph could be implemented as well.

QuoteSpeed limits will not be increased east of Winnemucca in part to reduce potential traffic safety concerns created by slower-moving trucks unable to ascend mountainous grades at the same speeds as passenger vehicles.

Nevada law provides that the maximum fine for exceeding 80 mph, but not exceeding 85 mph, in a zone posted for 80 is $25, with no points charged against the driver's record.

Quote from: gonealookin on May 03, 2017, 02:21:05 PM
Nevada's 80 mph maximum speed limit, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2015, is finally being implemented as soon as next week (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/884/395) on a 125-mile stretch on I-80.

QuoteThe Nevada Department of Transportation will raise the maximum speed limit from 75 to 80 mph on sections of Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca.

Beginning as early as May 8, roughly 30 new speed limit signs will be installed with the 80 mph speed limit on Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca, excluding a section of interstate through Lovelock.

While this part does pertain to certain grades between Winnemucca and the Utah border, there are long stretches out there where 80 mph could be implemented as well.

QuoteSpeed limits will not be increased east of Winnemucca in part to reduce potential traffic safety concerns created by slower-moving trucks unable to ascend mountainous grades at the same speeds as passenger vehicles.

Nevada law provides that the maximum fine for exceeding 80 mph, but not exceeding 85 mph, in a zone posted for 80 is $25, with no points charged against the driver's record.

Thanks for posting this–I'd been wondering if NDOT was doing studies, or just not being in a hurry to post 80 after the law was approved last session. I hadn't yet come across that press release.

The press release has photos of Speed Limit 80 signs being produced and stacked. So nice!

Wow another 80!  Pretty soon the whole west will be that way.  I do wish though that some states would raise their off interstates to higher limits.  Many states still impose only 65 mph on two lane roads that could easily have 70 or 75 mph limits.  Hey if Texas can post a two lane road at 75 and have no major issues why can't others.

Also, why can't Arkansas and Louisiana go higher than 55 on two lane roads being neighbors of Texas who have 65 mph speed limits?  I drove US 71 in 01 and it took forever to go from Fort Smith to Shreveport at the time.  And what made it worse was how close the road was to states that implemented 65 mph speed limits along the whole stretch.  That is probably why many locals are pushing to get the I-49 gap closed.  US 71 may be a nice drive, but a slow one.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2017, 07:40:58 AMI do wish though that some states would raise their off interstates to higher limits.  Many states still impose only 65 mph on two lane roads that could easily have 70 or 75 mph limits.

By off interstates, are you referring to freeways that aren't Interstates or roads the aren't divided?

Most of the eastern states, the maximum speed limit for undivided roadways is still 55.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2017, 07:40:58 AMI do wish though that some states would raise their off interstates to higher limits.  Many states still impose only 65 mph on two lane roads that could easily have 70 or 75 mph limits.  Hey if Texas can post a two lane road at 75 and have no major issues why can't others.

Texas is in fact having issues--some roads posted for 75 have subsequently had to be downposted to 70, including not just two-lane roads but also some Interstates such as a hilly length of I-20 in Eastland County that is now receiving geometric improvements.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2017, 07:40:58 AMAlso, why can't Arkansas and Louisiana go higher than 55 on two lane roads being neighbors of Texas who have 65 mph speed limits?  I drove US 71 in 01 and it took forever to go from Fort Smith to Shreveport at the time.  And what made it worse was how close the road was to states that implemented 65 mph speed limits along the whole stretch.  That is probably why many locals are pushing to get the I-49 gap closed.  US 71 may be a nice drive, but a slow one.

Actually, Arkansas and Louisiana now both have 70 MPH speed limits on Interstates, and this is now the speed limit of the portions of the US 71 relocation between Shreveport and Texarkana that is now posted as I-49.  It is Texas' other two US neighbors--Oklahoma and New Mexico--that have 65 on rural two-lane state highways.  I have not attempted US 71 between Texarkana and Fort Smith, but it passes through very hilly country and 55 MPH may very well be the highest speed limit that is reasonably prudent.  Part of the issue in Arkansas and Louisiana is that two-lane roads are less likely to have shoulders than in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

I think bills like Michigan's recent speed limit increase are a step in the right direction, so far as two-lane rural primary state highways are concerned.  The headline provision in the bill was an Interstate speed limit increase from 70 to 75, which I disagree with, but it also provides for up to 65 on two-lane rural primaries, which establishes scope for a clear differentiation in speed limit between roads like US 2 and M-28 (full shoulders, easy curves, generous geometry, multiple passing lanes at relatively close spacing) and the M-123 loop out (almost) to Whitefish Point and Tahquamenon Falls (hard strips instead of shoulders, tight curves, no passing lanes, very limited passing opportunity).

Another underlying issue is that in some states, Interstate speed limits have far more visibility than speed limits on two-lane rural primaries.  Back in 1996, in Kansas, it was understood from the start that maximum speed limits would change for all state highways, and all Interstates were up-posted the day the NMSL became void while the two-lane rural primaries took a few months for speed limit surveys to be completed on a rolling basis.  In Colorado, on the other hand, Interstates went up to 75 right away while two-lane rural primaries stayed 55 for years.  It is only recently (not sure exactly when) that they have gone up to 65.  There are many other states like Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New York where years of lobbying have secured (very reluctant) 70 limits on rural freeways but two-lane rural primaries are still stuck at 55.  These states include a few where important two-lane rural primaries consistently have full shoulders (like Wisconsin, but unlike Arkansas).

NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

We're not alone..
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates?topicName=Speed - as far as I understand that is pretty recent.

Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 02:26:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

We're not alone..
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates?topicName=Speed - as far as I understand that is pretty recent.

Gotta love the lie IIHS posts there though:

QuoteSpeeding makes crashes more likely and more likely to be deadly.

Guess they never heard of speed differentials.

Quote from: Brandon on May 05, 2017, 02:38:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 02:26:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

We're not alone..
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates?topicName=Speed - as far as I understand that is pretty recent.

Gotta love the lie IIHS posts there though:

QuoteSpeeding makes crashes more likely and more likely to be deadly.

Guess they never heard of speed differentials.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I'll believe claims like that as soon as they start differentiating between "going over the speed limit" and "driving too fast for conditions."  But when both situations are lumped together under the label "speeding-related crash," I stop listening.  It's widely accepted (I know, I know, citation needed) that most speed-related crashes are due to driving too fast for conditions, but nobody I've talked to seems to know exactly what percentage.

Quote from: kphoger on May 05, 2017, 03:04:41 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 05, 2017, 02:38:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 02:26:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

We're not alone..
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates?topicName=Speed - as far as I understand that is pretty recent.

Gotta love the lie IIHS posts there though:

QuoteSpeeding makes crashes more likely and more likely to be deadly.

Guess they never heard of speed differentials.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I'll believe claims like that as soon as they start differentiating between "going over the speed limit" and "driving too fast for conditions."  But when both situations are lumped together under the label "speeding-related crash," I stop listening.  It's widely accepted (I know, I know, citation needed) that most speed-related crashes are due to driving too fast for conditions, but nobody I've talked to seems to know exactly what percentage.

And all that is because I couldn't link directly to the map from IIHS web site...

Quote from: kphoger on May 05, 2017, 03:04:41 PM

Quote from: Brandon on May 05, 2017, 02:38:59 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 02:26:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

We're not alone..
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates?topicName=Speed - as far as I understand that is pretty recent.

Gotta love the lie IIHS posts there though:

QuoteSpeeding makes crashes more likely and more likely to be deadly.

Guess they never heard of speed differentials.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I'll believe claims like that as soon as they start differentiating between "going over the speed limit" and "driving too fast for conditions."  But when both situations are lumped together under the label "speeding-related crash," I stop listening.  It's widely accepted (I know, I know, citation needed) that most speed-related crashes are due to driving too fast for conditions, but nobody I've talked to seems to know exactly what percentage.

Those of us in the research community agree completely. Differentials are the killer and the speed limit almost always has nothing to do with design speed. Speed related crashes are typically caused by not adjusting to conditions and idiots driving well under the 85th percentile speed. That's right - a lot of speed-related crashes are caused by the assholes driving SLOW.

Quote from: cl94 on May 05, 2017, 04:31:51 PM
That's right - a lot of speed-related crashes are caused by the assholes driving SLOW.

Ask any snow plow driver who's had to go 40 mph on the Interstate with blade on pavement how many times he/she has almost been rear-ended.

Quote from: kphoger on May 05, 2017, 04:42:35 PM

Quote from: cl94 on May 05, 2017, 04:31:51 PM
That's right - a lot of speed-related crashes are caused by the assholes driving SLOW.

Ask any snow plow driver who's had to go 40 mph on the Interstate with blade on pavement how many times he/she has almost been rear-ended.

Plows are one thing. It's the old grannies who insist on driving 55-60 in a 65 when there's a parallel surface road.

Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 02:26:49 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

We're not alone..
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates?topicName=Speed - as far as I understand that is pretty recent.

The other states below 70 aren't in the examples of states that went to 70 in the post previous to mine.

I'm hoping with the new legislation passed in Oklahoma last year, their non turnpike interstates will finally go above 70.

Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
NY interstates are still stuck at 65, and pretty much every effort to change that has been dead on arrival.  Heck, I-495 is still stuck at 55!

Is there any part of the LIE with exit numbers below 60 where is it even possible to exceed, oh, I don't know, 25 MPH?

Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2017, 04:31:07 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on May 03, 2017, 02:21:05 PM
Nevada's 80 mph maximum speed limit, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2015, is finally being implemented as soon as next week (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/884/395) on a 125-mile stretch on I-80.

QuoteThe Nevada Department of Transportation will raise the maximum speed limit from 75 to 80 mph on sections of Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca.

Beginning as early as May 8, roughly 30 new speed limit signs will be installed with the 80 mph speed limit on Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca, excluding a section of interstate through Lovelock.

While this part does pertain to certain grades between Winnemucca and the Utah border, there are long stretches out there where 80 mph could be implemented as well.

QuoteSpeed limits will not be increased east of Winnemucca in part to reduce potential traffic safety concerns created by slower-moving trucks unable to ascend mountainous grades at the same speeds as passenger vehicles.

Nevada law provides that the maximum fine for exceeding 80 mph, but not exceeding 85 mph, in a zone posted for 80 is $25, with no points charged against the driver's record.

Thanks for posting this–I'd been wondering if NDOT was doing studies, or just not being in a hurry to post 80 after the law was approved last session. I hadn't yet come across that press release.

The press release has photos of Speed Limit 80 signs being produced and stacked. So nice!

KTVN-2 (CBS affiliate) in Reno ran a story (http://www.ktvn.com/story/35375830/80-mph-speed-limit-becomes-official-along-i-80) about this on Monday, May 8th. New signs were indeed being installed on Monday.

It mentions that no other sections of I-80 east of Winnemucca are likely to be raised to 80mph, due to the hills/passes and potential speed differentials with trucks. However, NDOT is supposedly examining data to evaluate potential 80mph speed limits on I-15.

Quote from: roadfro on May 11, 2017, 02:28:20 AM

Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2017, 04:31:07 AM

Quote from: gonealookin on May 03, 2017, 02:21:05 PM
Nevada's 80 mph maximum speed limit, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2015, is finally being implemented as soon as next week (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/884/395) on a 125-mile stretch on I-80.

QuoteThe Nevada Department of Transportation will raise the maximum speed limit from 75 to 80 mph on sections of Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca.

Beginning as early as May 8, roughly 30 new speed limit signs will be installed with the 80 mph speed limit on Interstate 80 between Fernley and Winnemucca, excluding a section of interstate through Lovelock.

While this part does pertain to certain grades between Winnemucca and the Utah border, there are long stretches out there where 80 mph could be implemented as well.

QuoteSpeed limits will not be increased east of Winnemucca in part to reduce potential traffic safety concerns created by slower-moving trucks unable to ascend mountainous grades at the same speeds as passenger vehicles.

Nevada law provides that the maximum fine for exceeding 80 mph, but not exceeding 85 mph, in a zone posted for 80 is $25, with no points charged against the driver's record.

Thanks for posting this–I'd been wondering if NDOT was doing studies, or just not being in a hurry to post 80 after the law was approved last session. I hadn't yet come across that press release.

The press release has photos of Speed Limit 80 signs being produced and stacked. So nice!

KTVN-2 (CBS affiliate) in Reno ran a story (http://www.ktvn.com/story/35375830/80-mph-speed-limit-becomes-official-along-i-80) about this on Monday, May 8th. New signs were indeed being installed on Monday.

It mentions that no other sections of I-80 east of Winnemucca are likely to be raised to 80mph, due to the hills/passes and potential speed differentials with trucks. However, NDOT is supposedly examining data to evaluate potential 80mph speed limits on I-15.

Welp, that's 7 states with 80mph. Only 43 left to go.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Welp, that's 7 states with 80mph. Only 43 left to go.

Have you driven out west?  I'd say there's definitely merit to northeastern states having lower speed limits than western states.  Where traffic volumes are consistently low and exits are widely spaced, it's reasonable to go faster; where traffic volumes are consistently high and exits are closely spaced, it's reasonable to go slower.

Between Winnemucca and Fernley, it's 125 miles of wide-open driving with AADT under 9000; there are a total of 16 exits along the way and only one incorporated town, whose population is less than 2000.  Does not compare.

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2017, 11:34:12 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Welp, that's 7 states with 80mph. Only 43 left to go.

Have you driven out west?  I'd say there's definitely merit to northeastern states having lower speed limits than western states.  Where traffic volumes are consistently low and exits are widely spaced, it's reasonable to go faster; where traffic volumes are consistently high and exits are closely spaced, it's reasonable to go slower.

Between Winnemucca and Fernley, it's 125 miles of wide-open driving with AADT under 9000; there are a total of 16 exits along the way and only one incorporated town, whose population is less than 2000.  Does not compare.

There are also fairly long stretches of moderate traffic on east side.. NYS has upstate with high density - but also I87 northway between Albany and Montreal (well, border); and I-88. Many stretches of Thruway (I-90 and I-87) have less than dense traffic.
It is not as empty as you describe, but not every place is crowded like NYC...

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Welp, that's 7 states with 80mph. Only 43 left to go.

And I wonder if New Mexico will be the 8th, considering North Dakota's bill failed.  I can see New Mexico introducing an 80mph bill soon.

As of now Arkansas has adopted a 70 mph speed limit on most if not all of our Interstates and freeway systems.  :bigass:

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2017, 11:34:12 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Welp, that's 7 states with 80mph. Only 43 left to go.

Have you driven out west?  I'd say there's definitely merit to northeastern states having lower speed limits than western states.  Where traffic volumes are consistently low and exits are widely spaced, it's reasonable to go faster; where traffic volumes are consistently high and exits are closely spaced, it's reasonable to go slower.

Between Winnemucca and Fernley, it's 125 miles of wide-open driving with AADT under 9000; there are a total of 16 exits along the way and only one incorporated town, whose population is less than 2000.  Does not compare.

Not a good comparison.

It can be argued that the New York Thruway, with its widely spaced exits and free flowing traffic (on most days), can sustain a 75 MPH SL. So can I-86 through much of the Southern Tier of the state, which has pretty low traffic volumes for much of its length, especially west of I-390. And I-390 south of Rochester. And I-87. And I-89. And I-91. And much of I-95 in Maine. And I-295 in Maine. And the Ohio Turnpike. And I-80 in Pennsylvania. And I-79. And...

Quote from: seicer on May 12, 2017, 03:32:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2017, 11:34:12 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2017, 11:00:35 PM
Welp, that's 7 states with 80mph. Only 43 left to go.

Have you driven out west?  I'd say there's definitely merit to northeastern states having lower speed limits than western states.  Where traffic volumes are consistently low and exits are widely spaced, it's reasonable to go faster; where traffic volumes are consistently high and exits are closely spaced, it's reasonable to go slower.

Between Winnemucca and Fernley, it's 125 miles of wide-open driving with AADT under 9000; there are a total of 16 exits along the way and only one incorporated town, whose population is less than 2000.  Does not compare.

Not a good comparison.

It can be argued that the New York Thruway, with its widely spaced exits and free flowing traffic (on most days), can sustain a 75 MPH SL. So can I-86 through much of the Southern Tier of the state, which has pretty low traffic volumes for much of its length, especially west of I-390. And I-390 south of Rochester. And I-87. And I-89. And I-91. And much of I-95 in Maine. And I-295 in Maine. And the Ohio Turnpike. And I-80 in Pennsylvania. And I-79. And...

Maine already has a 75 mph speed limit on some sections of I-95.

Quote from: 1 on May 12, 2017, 03:50:07 PM

Maine already has a 75 mph speed limit on some sections of I-95.

Do you see some correlation between these two maps?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iihs.org%2Ffrontend%2Fiihs%2Flaws%2Fdatastoreimages.ashx%3FdocumentName%3DMaxSpeedOnRuralInterstates&hash=1283d325911715f564f67f70a8afdb4660c7e61e)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Map_of_states_showing_population_density_in_2013.svg/640px-Map_of_states_showing_population_density_in_2013.svg.png)

I think at least some correlation is there... There are also differences, e.g. OR/WA.. But Maine definitely fits the trend.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 12, 2017, 03:21:01 PMAnd I wonder if New Mexico will be the 8th, considering North Dakota's bill failed.  I can see New Mexico introducing an 80mph bill soon.

I can see them backing away from 80 MPH given the special signing that already has to be provided for sharp curves on rural Interstates (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0919642,-104.0756541,3a,15y,60.05h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_13_W0Z8esAXkuyDAkxH-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) like the double curve on I-40 at the Montoya exit (Exit 311).

So much bloom has already come off the rose at 75 that I expect a consensus to develop that it is not worth having 80 unless roadway geometry is good enough to allow cruise control to be set comfortably at that speed in good weather.

A population density map wouldn't work in this instance. New York's density is skewed because of New York City, Long Island and a handful of other cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse). It's not very populated further north and the density is a lot lower in the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier.

And in some states with higher densities, a 70 MPH SL or a 65 MPH SL can exist well into urban areas, like Detroit. It's just politics as usual that dictates some awful speed limits (like Pennsylvania's law that mandates a 55 MPH SL in any urban area for any expressway/interstate).

Quote from: seicer on May 12, 2017, 04:50:52 PM
A population density map wouldn't work in this instance. New York's density is skewed because of New York City, Long Island and a handful of other cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse). It's not very populated further north and the density is a lot lower in the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier.

And in some states with higher densities, a 70 MPH SL or a 65 MPH SL can exist well into urban areas, like Detroit. It's just politics as usual that dictates some awful speed limits (like Pennsylvania's law that mandates a 55 MPH SL in any urban area for any expressway/interstate).

Sure it is also politics. But population density statewide is also relevant via politics: I have hard time thinking those representing NYC would see increase of speed limit the same way as upstate. Advantage is fairly vague for the city...

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 12, 2017, 04:10:44 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 12, 2017, 03:21:01 PMAnd I wonder if New Mexico will be the 8th, considering North Dakota's bill failed.  I can see New Mexico introducing an 80mph bill soon.

I can see them backing away from 80 MPH given the special signing that already has to be provided for sharp curves on rural Interstates (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0919642,-104.0756541,3a,15y,60.05h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_13_W0Z8esAXkuyDAkxH-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) like the double curve on I-40 at the Montoya exit (Exit 311).

So much bloom has already come off the rose at 75 that I expect a consensus to develop that it is not worth having 80 unless roadway geometry is good enough to allow cruise control to be set comfortably at that speed in good weather.

Which is why I think the state should set 80 mph speed limits based on engineering judgement instead of a blanket speed limit. This is what most 80 mph states are doing (South Dakota being the main exception).


Also, the speed limit should remain 75 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe as well as between Las Cruces and the El Paso area.  In addition, to eliminate speed differentials between neighboring states, the speed limit should also remain 75 on I-40 west of Gallup and east of Tucumcari to match Arizona and Texas, respectively.

Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Quote from: kalvado on May 12, 2017, 04:57:17 PM

Quote from: seicer on May 12, 2017, 04:50:52 PM
A population density map wouldn't work in this instance. New York's density is skewed because of New York City, Long Island and a handful of other cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse). It's not very populated further north and the density is a lot lower in the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier.

And in some states with higher densities, a 70 MPH SL or a 65 MPH SL can exist well into urban areas, like Detroit. It's just politics as usual that dictates some awful speed limits (like Pennsylvania's law that mandates a 55 MPH SL in any urban area for any expressway/interstate).

Sure it is also politics. But population density statewide is also relevant via politics: I have hard time thinking those representing NYC would see increase of speed limit the same way as upstate. Advantage is fairly vague for the city...

Downstate politicians have been some of the main people pushing for increases. Most people think having a limit of 55 on the LIE, Sunrise Highway and the Taconic is absurd, given that everyone drives 75+, especially on the first two. The 75 bill that died a couple years ago was proposed by someone representing the Bronx. In New York, people generally go 10-15+ above the speed limit, which implies that the speed limit should be higher. Hell, the cops typically enforce speed as if the limit is 75.

And again, population density doesn't necessarily mean anything. Ohio has 65 mph limits right up to downtown Columbus and 70 mph limits INSIDE CITY LIMITS. Columbus is the 15th largest city in the country. Pennsylvania requires 55 if you're in a remotely suburban area.

Quote from: cl94 on May 14, 2017, 08:22:47 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 12, 2017, 04:57:17 PM

Quote from: seicer on May 12, 2017, 04:50:52 PM
A population density map wouldn't work in this instance. New York's density is skewed because of New York City, Long Island and a handful of other cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse). It's not very populated further north and the density is a lot lower in the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier.

And in some states with higher densities, a 70 MPH SL or a 65 MPH SL can exist well into urban areas, like Detroit. It's just politics as usual that dictates some awful speed limits (like Pennsylvania's law that mandates a 55 MPH SL in any urban area for any expressway/interstate).

Sure it is also politics. But population density statewide is also relevant via politics: I have hard time thinking those representing NYC would see increase of speed limit the same way as upstate. Advantage is fairly vague for the city...

Downstate politicians have been some of the main people pushing for increases. Most people think having a limit of 55 on the LIE, Sunrise Highway and the Taconic is absurd, given that everyone drives 75+, especially on the first two. The 75 bill that died a couple years ago was proposed by someone representing the Bronx. In New York, people generally go 10-15+ above the speed limit, which implies that the speed limit should be higher. Hell, the cops typically enforce speed as if the limit is 75.

And again, population density doesn't necessarily mean anything. Ohio has 65 mph limits right up to downtown Columbus and 70 mph limits INSIDE CITY LIMITS. Columbus is the 15th largest city in the country. Pennsylvania requires 55 if you're in a remotely suburban area.

It's strange, because the PA Turnpike gladly posts 70 MPH in Philly but a road like US 202 is stuck at 55 MPH, when traffic could easily support 65 MPH (flow of traffic is closer to 70).

Quote from: MASTERNC on May 14, 2017, 09:29:17 PMIt's strange, because the PA Turnpike gladly posts 70 MPH in near Philly but a road like US 202 is stuck at 55 MPH, when traffic could easily support 65 MPH (flow of traffic is closer to 70).

FTFY.

To date, there's no highway within Philadelphia's city limits that's posted higher than 55; even though many exceed 55 during off-peak periods.

Regarding the PA Turnpike near Philly (the I-276 section and the lower I-476/NE Extension section); the supposed reasoning for raising the limit along those stretches initially to 65 then later to 70 (even near Philly) was an effort to maintain as consistent a speed limit as possible throughout the entire Turnpike, tunnels & work zones being the exceptions.

I do agree that many highways in the immediate Greater Philadelphia area could have higher posted speed limits.

Quote from: kalvado on May 12, 2017, 04:06:27 PM
Do you see some correlation between these two maps?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iihs.org%2Ffrontend%2Fiihs%2Flaws%2Fdatastoreimages.ashx%3FdocumentName%3DMaxSpeedOnRuralInterstates&hash=1283d325911715f564f67f70a8afdb4660c7e61e)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Map_of_states_showing_population_density_in_2013.svg/640px-Map_of_states_showing_population_density_in_2013.svg.png)

I think at least some correlation is there... There are also differences, e.g. OR/WA.. But Maine definitely fits the trend.

Yes, there is a correlation.  Of course we can all come up with counterexamples, and people have been doing that in reply to your post, but they are just counterexamples.  The obvious pattern is that less dense states have higher speed limits–with the exception of some already well-known outliers like Texas and (at least recently) Oregon.

Sure, I've been in cities where traffic tends to flow at 75 mph (I lived in Chicagoland, after all).  But I think what that really signifies is that a lot of rural highways are underposted, more so than urban highways.

Based on the map, New Mexico is definitely a state that can warrant an 80 mph speed limit on some of its rural Interstates as well as on US 70 through White Sands.

Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Texas only has one highway with an 85 mph speed limit, and ironically it's in a higher density area.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2017, 02:48:29 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Texas only has one highway with an 85 mph speed limit, and ironically it's in a higher density area.

I'm not sure I'd describe SH-130's routing as in a "higher density area". Is it less remote than the 10 in West Texas? Sure, but it's still a very rural freeway.

I think the more important measure is AADT levels. SH-130 doesn't get much use.

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

Arizona is too congested *IN PHOENIX* to have an 80 MPH speed limit. But, in and around Phoenix, most of the speed limits are around 65 MPH and give or take they are about right. Nothing about I-10 in eastern Arizona gives me much reason for anything but a few advisory speed limits. They could make it 90 out there.
California is too congested or too hilly for 80 MPH (or 130 km/h) *ALONG THE COAST*, but *LARGE* portions of I-5, 8, 10, and 40 and certainly I-505 and portions of 580 could support 80 MPH for cars with little trouble at all. There are even a few pockets along US-101 (San Miguel to King City, for sure) and I-80 (thinking Fairfield to Davis or West Sac), certainly portions of CASR-58 and probably 99. There are portions of CASR-85 and I-280 that are used for a clandestine race track at some times whereas, at other times, the speed limit is irrelevant because you'd have trouble exceeding it, even if it were 55 MPH.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2017, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Super speeder law in Arizona? Barry Goldwater would be turning in his grave!

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on July 15, 2017, 12:47:39 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2017, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Super speeder law in Arizona? Barry Goldwater would be turning in his grave!

It shocks me how few people are aware of this law.  For comparison almost everyone seems to be aware of Virginia's reckless driving over 80 law.  Is there a difference in the enforcement rates between the two states?

Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 17, 2017, 04:43:12 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on July 15, 2017, 12:47:39 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2017, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Super speeder law in Arizona? Barry Goldwater would be turning in his grave!

It shocks me how few people are aware of this law.  For comparison almost everyone seems to be aware of Virginia's reckless driving over 80 law.  Is there a difference in the enforcement rates between the two states?

Virginia has signs regarding the reckless driving law. Does Arizona post signs at regular intervals?

Quote from: cl94 on July 17, 2017, 04:52:54 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 17, 2017, 04:43:12 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on July 15, 2017, 12:47:39 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2017, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Super speeder law in Arizona? Barry Goldwater would be turning in his grave!

It shocks me how few people are aware of this law.  For comparison almost everyone seems to be aware of Virginia's reckless driving over 80 law.  Is there a difference in the enforcement rates between the two states?

Virginia has signs regarding the reckless driving law. Does Arizona post signs at regular intervals?

No, and as far as I know Virginia's signage is fairly recent and so far it is only on I-95 and I-81, yet almost everyone knew about that law even before VDOT posted those signs.  However, Virginia does have its Speed Monitored by Aircraft signs.

IMO there should be a large buffer between a prima facie reckless speeding law and the top speed limit in the state.  It is better to be worded as 25 mph over the speed limit, as opposed to 80 MPH.  80 MPH is very fast when the speed limits are 55 during the days of the NMSL.  It is probably the speed of a lot of traffic  when the speed limit is 70 MPH, which is where many rural interstates are signed these days.

I don't believe that 80 is reckless on any rural interstate, but 100 might be.

Of the remaining NE states that are still 65 which one is most likely to raise theirs if any?

Quote from: mrsman on July 20, 2017, 12:20:50 AM
IMO there should be a large buffer between a prima facie reckless speeding law and the top speed limit in the state.  It is better to be worded as 25 mph over the speed limit, as opposed to 80 MPH.  80 MPH is very fast when the speed limits are 55 during the days of the NMSL.  It is probably the speed of a lot of traffic  when the speed limit is 70 MPH, which is where many rural interstates are signed these days.

I don't believe that 80 is reckless on any rural interstate, but 100 might be.

80 generally isn't reckless on a modern-standard freeway period. Heck, traffic on I-495 and NY 27 on Long Island (both signed at 55) generally moves above 80. I've had my doors blown off when I've been going 80-85 on those roads. Hard to say the 85th percentile speed is reckless, right?  :-D

Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2017, 02:50:18 PM
Of the remaining NE states that are still 65 which one is most likely to raise theirs if any?

Good question, as all of the remaining ones have opposition at the state level. CT and RI have the best justification for keeping it low (population density). There has been a push to raise NY and NJ to 70-75, but those bills keep dying in committee. Mass Pike up to 70 has been discussed. I don't recall any discussion whatsoever in Vermont, but all 65 zones there could handle 70.

Quote from: cl94 on July 20, 2017, 06:57:19 PM

Quote from: mrsman on July 20, 2017, 12:20:50 AM
IMO there should be a large buffer between a prima facie reckless speeding law and the top speed limit in the state.  It is better to be worded as 25 mph over the speed limit, as opposed to 80 MPH.  80 MPH is very fast when the speed limits are 55 during the days of the NMSL.  It is probably the speed of a lot of traffic  when the speed limit is 70 MPH, which is where many rural interstates are signed these days.

I don't believe that 80 is reckless on any rural interstate, but 100 might be.

80 generally isn't reckless on a modern-standard freeway period. Heck, traffic on I-495 and NY 27 on Long Island (both signed at 55) generally moves above 80. I've had my doors blown off when I've been going 80-85 on those roads. Hard to say the 85th percentile speed is reckless, right?  :-D

Quote from: dvferyance on July 20, 2017, 02:50:18 PM
Of the remaining NE states that are still 65 which one is most likely to raise theirs if any?

Good question, as all of the remaining ones have opposition at the state level. CT and RI have the best justification for keeping it low (population density). There has been a push to raise NY and NJ to 70-75, but those bills keep dying in committee. Mass Pike up to 70 has been discussed. I don't recall any discussion whatsoever in Vermont, but all 65 zones there could handle 70.

ct and ri could both handle 70 if not 75.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2017, 10:37:18 PM
ct and ri could both handle 70 if not 75.

Not across the board.  Some places, yes.  I-95 in Providence or SW CT?  Not so much.

You seem to be on a posting spree, too.

Quote from: Rothman on August 01, 2017, 11:40:20 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2017, 10:37:18 PM
ct and ri could both handle 70 if not 75.

Not across the board.  Some places, yes.  I-95 in Providence or SW CT?  Not so much.

You seem to be on a posting spree, too.

I meant max of 75.

So I guess this fits well in here, not really worth starting a new thread over. Had no idea this was supposed to happen until I saw the new signs today. Looks like ODOT raised the Truck speed limits in all 65/55 zones to 65/60. This matches the new rural central/eastern Oregon highways limits like US-97, it was silly to have I-5 with a lower overall speed limit. Definitely a step in the right direction. Oddly, the 60/55 zones are still the same, and they don't plan to change them.

News article: http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2017/10/oregon_to_raise_some_interstat.html

Study (PDF): http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Truck-Speed-Exec-Sum-2017.pdf

There's a few questionable/bullshit statements found in the study, which otherwise all makes sense:

QuoteIt is fairly well established that increasing speeds leads to increasing crashes

Source? It's definitely not black and white like they make it out to be. I'd be interested to see how the increases have affected I84 or US-20 in Eastern Oregon, I feel like they probably didn't change much, or even got a bit better. Though I don't have the numbers.

QuoteRaising posted speeds encourages vehicles to travel faster and may result in more crashes.  Setting the speeds closer to the desired speed of travel will reduce travel speed variance between vehicles and may result in fewer crashes.

I mean, true I guess since they said "may", but you basically contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.

QuoteA posted speed increase in truck speeds may not result in much actual increase in truck travel speeds, unlike a similar raise
in passenger car speeds.

I'd like to see, for example, a comparison before and after in travel speeds of cars and trucks after Idaho raised speeds from 75/65 to 80/70. I suspect actual driving speeds didn't change that much for either type of vehicle.

Oh, ODOT...

Also worth noting they plan to lower the speed limit in Roseburg city limits from 65 to 60. Matches other urban areas like Eugene and Salem, so I can't complain too much about consistency. Other than saying that all those should be 65, and the rural areas should be 70-75, but, uh, yeah, not gonna happen.

Quote from: doorknob60 on December 25, 2017, 02:19:06 AM
So I guess this fits well in here, not really worth starting a new thread over. Had no idea this was supposed to happen until I saw the new signs today. Looks like ODOT raised the Truck speed limits in all 65/55 zones to 65/60. This matches the new rural central/eastern Oregon highways limits like US-97, it was silly to have I-5 with a lower overall speed limit. Definitely a step in the right direction. Oddly, the 60/55 zones are still the same, and they don't plan to change them.

News article: http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2017/10/oregon_to_raise_some_interstat.html

Study (PDF): http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Truck-Speed-Exec-Sum-2017.pdf

There's a few questionable/bullshit statements found in the study, which otherwise all makes sense:

QuoteIt is fairly well established that increasing speeds leads to increasing crashes

Source? It's definitely not black and white like they make it out to be. I'd be interested to see how the increases have affected I84 or US-20 in Eastern Oregon, I feel like they probably didn't change much, or even got a bit better. Though I don't have the numbers.

QuoteRaising posted speeds encourages vehicles to travel faster and may result in more crashes.  Setting the speeds closer to the desired speed of travel will reduce travel speed variance between vehicles and may result in fewer crashes.

I mean, true I guess since they said "may", but you basically contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.

QuoteA posted speed increase in truck speeds may not result in much actual increase in truck travel speeds, unlike a similar raise
in passenger car speeds.

I'd like to see, for example, a comparison before and after in travel speeds of cars and trucks after Idaho raised speeds from 75/65 to 80/70. I suspect actual driving speeds didn't change that much for either type of vehicle.

Oh, ODOT...

Also worth noting they plan to lower the speed limit in Roseburg city limits from 65 to 60. Matches other urban areas like Eugene and Salem, so I can't complain too much about consistency. Other than saying that all those should be 65, and the rural areas should be 70-75, but, uh, yeah, not gonna happen.

That is ODOT for you, giving vision zero [censored] while not backing up their facts. Plus many sources are coming out saying its safer to have faster speeds. I'm happy about the section overall as it is a step in the right direction.

Their data could be used against them as it support a a 70 mph limit. I'm highly considering proposing a speed limit increase bill to my representative because he wasn't opposed to it. To keep it reasonable to pass I wouldn't go above 70T65 except for a section of I-84/I-82 at 75T70.

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Unless they've done something I'm not aware about since June, I-90 is still 70 east of the Cascades.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 25, 2017, 02:45:14 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Unless they've done something I'm not aware about since June, I-90 is still 70 east of the Cascades.

Correct. The law allows limits up to 75, but WSDOT has not yet studied a road that it finds to be suitable for 75. Hence, no 75 mph limits yet posted.

Here's the most recent study, which was in relation to I-90 from near George, to Spokane County: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/default.htm

As far as I know, WSDOT has not ruled out further studies. I-5 from Olympia to Vancouver (excluding the urban limits in between) seems like the next logical study.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 25, 2017, 02:49:45 AM

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 25, 2017, 02:45:14 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Unless they've done something I'm not aware about since June, I-90 is still 70 east of the Cascades.

Correct. The law allows limits up to 75, but WSDOT has not yet studied a road that it finds to be suitable for 75. Hence, no 75 mph limits yet posted.

Here's the most recent study, which was in relation to I-90 from near George, to Spokane County: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/default.htm

As far as I know, WSDOT has not ruled out further studies. I-5 from Olympia to Vancouver (excluding the urban limits in between) seems like the next logical study.

That study showed a 75 mph limit was suitable at least to me (73 average). The 2 corridors I would study: The one you mentioned plus I-82 between mp 38 and the Oregon Border.

Now about Washington's 60 mph truck limit.... Or just the west coast in general....

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 25, 2017, 02:45:14 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Unless they've done something I'm not aware about since June, I-90 is still 70 east of the Cascades.

Ah, thank you.  I am not sure what I was thinking back then.

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

And this is how Texas does its speed limits.  They are set based on population density at the county level.  80 mph on Interstates is only in sparsely populated areas of the state, and 75 mph on two-laners is likewise only in sparsely populated areas of the state.  (85 mph is limited to one highway (TX-130), and its speed limit was included in the arrangement with the state to build the highway.)

Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2017, 11:18:35 AMAnd this is how Texas does its speed limits.  They are set based on population density at the county level.  80 mph on Interstates is only in sparsely populated areas of the state, and 75 mph on two-laners is likewise only in sparsely populated areas of the state.  (85 mph is limited to one highway [TX-130], and its speed limit was included in the arrangement with the state to build the highway.)

Since 2011 the relationship between top speed limit and population density has been true only for rural freeways.  The original Gallegos bills from the noughties had persons-per-square-mile density thresholds for counties in which higher speed limits were permissible on rural roads, but now densely populated East Texas has considerable mileage of rural highway with 75 limits.

The "double billboard" speed limits also went away in 2011.

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2017, 01:00:25 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2017, 11:18:35 AMAnd this is how Texas does its speed limits.  They are set based on population density at the county level.  80 mph on Interstates is only in sparsely populated areas of the state, and 75 mph on two-laners is likewise only in sparsely populated areas of the state.  (85 mph is limited to one highway [TX-130], and its speed limit was included in the arrangement with the state to build the highway.)

Since 2011 the relationship between top speed limit and population density has been true only for rural freeways.  The original Gallegos bills from the noughties had persons-per-square-mile density thresholds for counties in which higher speed limits were permissible on rural roads, but now densely populated East Texas has considerable mileage of rural highway with 75 limits.

The "double billboard" speed limits also went away in 2011.

Thank you.  This coincides with changes I started seeing in the field around that time.

Quote from: kkt on December 25, 2017, 08:13:47 PM

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 25, 2017, 02:45:14 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Unless they've done something I'm not aware about since June, I-90 is still 70 east of the Cascades.

Ah, thank you.  I am not sure what I was thinking back then.

Of course, it would have been a fair assumption that the limit was 75; the fact that WSDOT decided not to increase it, despite the fact that the average motorist disobeys the current limit, was a poor decision. Cars are quickly becoming much safer than even ten years ago. Both the cars, and the drivers, can handle 75.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 26, 2017, 03:08:08 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 25, 2017, 08:13:47 PM

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 25, 2017, 02:45:14 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2017, 02:20:41 PM
Mapping finer-grain population density, say by county, with speed limits at the spot would take away some of the seeming outliers.  For instance, Washington's 75 mph speed limits are only found east of the Cascades, where the population is sparse.  Texas' 85 mph zones I think are all in West Texas, where the population is sparse.

Unless they've done something I'm not aware about since June, I-90 is still 70 east of the Cascades.

Ah, thank you.  I am not sure what I was thinking back then.

Of course, it would have been a fair assumption that the limit was 75; the fact that WSDOT decided not to increase it, despite the fact that the average motorist disobeys the current limit, was a poor decision. Cars are quickly becoming much safer than even ten years ago. Both the cars, and the drivers, can handle 75.

Indeed, when is the next chance for 75 to head to that area if the feds don't force it?

A 73 average means you should raise the speed limit, NOT follow the vision zero crap that actually can make it less safe in the long run.

Looks like Idaho might get rid of split speed limits.

Quote
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - An Idaho House panel has introduced legislation that would allow trucks, buses and other large vehicles to go the same speed limit as other vehicles on the state's highways.

House Transportation and Defense Committee Chairman Joe Palmer, a Republican from Meridian, said Monday that he wants to eliminate the slower speed limits currently placed on truck drivers.

Palmer says the separate speed limit system sometimes creates dangerous scenarios where truck drivers are traveling at much lower speeds than everyone else.

The panel agreed to introduce the proposal, but it still must clear a full hearing.

An investigation in 2015 by The Associated Press found that 14 states have speed limits for big trucks that are equal to or higher than their tires were designed to handle. Most truck tires aren't designed to go faster than 75 mph, and tire manufacturers say traveling faster than that can cause tires to fail and blow out, creating safety issues.

http://www.ktvb.com/article/news/politics/idaho-house-panel-introduces-speed-limit-bill/277-510785415

Someone has started a petition (and hopefully will get the ball rolling) on permitting a 75 mph speed limit on the Garden State Parkway.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/petition_seeks_to_raise_garden_state_parkway_speed.html#incart_river_home

Most of the commenters seem a little upset, wondering if drivers will be forced to slow down to 75 from current allowable speeds.  :-D

Quote from: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/petition_seeks_to_raise_garden_state_parkway_speed.html#incart_river_homeThe last speed increase on the Parkway - from 66 to 65 mph

:pan: :pan: :pan:

Looks like West Virginia's bill is dead for now:
http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2018, 01:06:26 PM
Looks like West Virginia's bill is dead for now:
http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/

80 is a bit excessive for West Virginia, IMO. The Interstates don't have enough straightaways. Even mountainous areas of the west generally don't have 80 mph limits. I could see 75, though.

Quote from: cl94 on February 09, 2018, 05:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2018, 01:06:26 PM
Looks like West Virginia's bill is dead for now:
http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/ (http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/)

80 is a bit excessive for West Virginia, IMO. The Interstates don't have enough straightaways. Even mountainous areas of the west generally don't have 80 mph limits. I could see 75, though.

Which is why I don't see Colorado doing it either.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2018, 06:47:07 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 09, 2018, 05:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2018, 01:06:26 PM
Looks like West Virginia's bill is dead for now:
http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/ (http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/)

80 is a bit excessive for West Virginia, IMO. The Interstates don't have enough straightaways. Even mountainous areas of the west generally don't have 80 mph limits. I could see 75, though.

Which is why I don't see Colorado doing it either.

What about I-70 east of Denver and I-76 (which, contrary to popular belief, are not mountainous)?

Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2018, 06:56:04 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2018, 06:47:07 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 09, 2018, 05:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2018, 01:06:26 PM
Looks like West Virginia's bill is dead for now:
http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/ (http://wvmetronews.com/2018/02/06/senate-committee-turns-down-opportunity-to-act-on-80-mph-speed-limit-bill/)

80 is a bit excessive for West Virginia, IMO. The Interstates don't have enough straightaways. Even mountainous areas of the west generally don't have 80 mph limits. I could see 75, though.

Which is why I don't see Colorado doing it either.

What about I-70 east of Denver and I-76 (which, contrary to popular belief, are not mountainous)?

Colorado isn't 100% mountains. East of I-25 is practically an extension of Kansas. West Virginia, on the other hand, is all mountains.

New bill for Nebraska could eventually lead to parts of I-80 being posted at 80:  http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraskans-weigh-in-on-proposal-to-raise-speed-limits/article_16598c66-5303-532a-b6f8-433c0459a0c0.html (http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraskans-weigh-in-on-proposal-to-raise-speed-limits/article_16598c66-5303-532a-b6f8-433c0459a0c0.html)

Tennessee has to reduce the area which legally has to be signed 55 mph.  That speed limit through a downtown is fine, but for suburbs 8 miles out it's ridiculous.  Up it to 65.

Mississippi to 75? http://www.landlinemag.com/story.aspx?storyid=71567#.WoKZSHOIY0M

Also mentions teucks slowing to 45 in inclement bad weather.

Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 12, 2018, 03:14:51 AM
Tennessee has to reduce the area which legally has to be signed 55 mph.  That speed limit through a downtown is fine, but for suburbs 8 miles out it's ridiculous.  Up it to 65.

Come to Pennsylvania! It's 55 MPH anywhere where there is the presence of a human being!

Quote from: seicer on February 13, 2018, 08:39:44 AM

Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 12, 2018, 03:14:51 AM
Tennessee has to reduce the area which legally has to be signed 55 mph.  That speed limit through a downtown is fine, but for suburbs 8 miles out it's ridiculous.  Up it to 65.

Come to Pennsylvania! It's 55 MPH anywhere where there is the presence of a human being!

The PA Turnpike's 70 mph zones in the greater Philly region claims otherwise.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 09:14:52 AM

Quote from: seicer on February 13, 2018, 08:39:44 AM

Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 12, 2018, 03:14:51 AM
Tennessee has to reduce the area which legally has to be signed 55 mph.  That speed limit through a downtown is fine, but for suburbs 8 miles out it's ridiculous.  Up it to 65.

Come to Pennsylvania! It's 55 MPH anywhere where there is the presence of a human being!

The PA Turnpike's 70 mph zones in the greater Philly region claims otherwise.

The PA Turnpike has an exemption here. Outside of the Turnpike system, speed limits in "urbanized areas" can go no higher than 55. Which, yes, includes 1/3 of I-90's length in the state and ridiculous amounts of I-81. And the worst part is that the cops actually enforce these stupid limits.

Quote from: cl94 on February 13, 2018, 01:53:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 09:14:52 AM

Quote from: seicer on February 13, 2018, 08:39:44 AM

Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 12, 2018, 03:14:51 AM
Tennessee has to reduce the area which legally has to be signed 55 mph.  That speed limit through a downtown is fine, but for suburbs 8 miles out it's ridiculous.  Up it to 65.

Come to Pennsylvania! It's 55 MPH anywhere where there is the presence of a human being!

The PA Turnpike's 70 mph zones in the greater Philly region claims otherwise.

The PA Turnpike has an exemption here. Outside of the Turnpike system, speed limits in "urbanized areas" can go no higher than 55. Which, yes, includes 1/3 of I-90's length in the state and ridiculous amounts of I-81. And the worst part is that the cops actually enforce these stupid limits.

Thankfully, not on I-95 or I-476.

For Nebraska's proposal, "safety advocates" are at it again, saying raising the speed limit will raise the amount of crashes and deaths ignoring the 85th% rule. Also in slight disbelief (how I take it) at South Dakota's decrease in accidents after the increase.

Edit: I forgot to do this http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraskans-weigh-in-on-proposal-to-raise-speed-limits/article_16598c66-5303-532a-b6f8-433c0459a0c0.html

Another 30 miles of I-80 in Nevada, from Wendover to Oasis, has been increased from 75mph to 80mph:
http://elkodaily.com/news/local/state-raises-speed-limit-on-portion-of-i--in/article_409b5806-1a59-5ff9-8ab0-f6be265955a3.html

QuoteThe department is continuing to evaluate other sections of I-80 but there are no immediate plans for additional changes.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on February 13, 2018, 02:54:49 AM
Mississippi to 75? http://www.landlinemag.com/story.aspx?storyid=71567#.WoKZSHOIY0M

The bill is already dead (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2018/pdf/history/SB/SB2046.xml).

Oklahoma has a bill to increase speed limits to 80MPH on four turnpikes:

Turner Turnpike
Indian Nation Turnpike
H.E. Bailey Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike

http://ktul.com/news/local/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-some-turnpikes-passes-senate

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2018, 09:58:13 AM
Oklahoma has a bill to increase speed limits to 80MPH on four turnpikes:

Turner Turnpike
Indian Nation Turnpike
H.E. Bailey Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike

http://ktul.com/news/local/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-some-turnpikes-passes-senate

This appears to be a revival of a previous bill that was killed in 2015.

i also believe this bill will increase other non-tolled freeway speed limits as well

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2017, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 17, 2017, 07:12:56 PM

Quote from: cl94 on July 17, 2017, 04:52:54 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 17, 2017, 04:43:12 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on July 15, 2017, 12:47:39 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 14, 2017, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on May 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM
Is Arizona too congested now to see 80 mph on certain sections of interstate? I'm surprised they haven't done it.

What has killed past attempts to raise the speed limit beyond 75 in Arizona is the state's criminal speeding law that any speed above 85 mph is considered a criminal offense.  Changing that has been a tough sell to the state's lawmakers, since a 5 mph buffer is too small.  That is why I see NM raising its speed limit before AZ since NM does not have such law.

Super speeder law in Arizona? Barry Goldwater would be turning in his grave!

It shocks me how few people are aware of this law.  For comparison almost everyone seems to be aware of Virginia's reckless driving over 80 law.  Is there a difference in the enforcement rates between the two states?

Virginia has signs regarding the reckless driving law. Does Arizona post signs at regular intervals?

No, and as far as I know Virginia's signage is fairly recent and so far it is only on I-95 and I-81, yet almost everyone knew about that law even before VDOT posted those signs.  However, Virginia does have its Speed Monitored by Aircraft signs.

Virgina also bans radar detectors

Z981

Criminal speeding laws like AZ and VA are really wrong.  The rule should be that reckless driving is the higher of 20 mph over the speed limit or 85 mph.  A rural interstate in AZ can legally be 80 mph, and you should only violate reckless driving if you drive over 100.  Of course, a more local road like a 40 mph surface street should absolutely be reckless at 85 or greater.   

Quote from: mrsman on April 11, 2018, 10:45:43 PM
Criminal speeding laws like AZ and VA are really wrong.  The rule should be that reckless driving is the higher of 20 mph over the speed limit or 85 mph.  A rural interstate in AZ can legally be 80 mph, and you should only violate reckless driving if you drive over 100.  Of course, a more local road like a 40 mph surface street should absolutely be reckless at 85 or greater.   

The higher of 20 mph over, or 85 mph?  I don't think that's what you meant to say.  So a business district posted at 20 mph you should be able to blast through at 84 mph and NOT face a reckless driving charge?

Quote from: mrsman on April 11, 2018, 10:45:43 PM
you should only violate reckless driving if you drive over 100.

There really shouldn't be any definitive reckless speed. It's all relative. A straight section of freeway in the middle of nowhere can handle 100 mph no issue. This became most evident to me when travelling along the QE2 Highway between Edmonton and Calgary a few years ago. Traffic was steadily doing 90-100 mph the entire way (speed limit like 68). One or two cars doing that speed when everyone else was doing 70 or 75? Yeah, that's very reckless. But everyone going 90 to 100? Not dangerous, because the differential between cars is very little.

What's reckless is doing something unexpected: a tractor on a freeway, for example.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2018, 09:58:13 AM
Oklahoma has a bill to increase speed limits to 80MPH on four turnpikes:

Turner Turnpike
Indian Nation Turnpike
H.E. Bailey Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike

http://ktul.com/news/local/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-some-turnpikes-passes-senate

I wish they would up non toll interstates to 75 in OK. The bill allowing this has been on the books for 20 years but they have kept them at 70.

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on April 13, 2018, 07:27:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2018, 09:58:13 AM
Oklahoma has a bill to increase speed limits to 80MPH on four turnpikes:

Turner Turnpike
Indian Nation Turnpike
H.E. Bailey Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike

http://ktul.com/news/local/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-some-turnpikes-passes-senate

I wish they would up non toll interstates to 75 in OK. The bill allowing this has been on the books for 20 years but they have kept them at 70.

I believe the bill passed and the speed limits will be increased but I would double check that. I can't recall why I think that perhaps it is just wishful thinking but I won't go look it up because I'm too lazy, but I'm not lazy enough to not share this funny story of someone else being lazy:

"I was once on a US military ship, having breakfast in the wardroom (officers lounge) when the Operations Officer (OPS) walks in. This guy was the definition of NOT a morning person; he's still half asleep, bleary eyed... basically a zombie with a bagel. He sits down across from me to eat his bagel and is just barely conscious. My back is to the outboard side of the ship, and the morning sun is blazing in one of the portholes putting a big bright-ass circle of light right on his barely conscious face. He's squinting and chewing and basically just remembering how to be alive for today. It's painful to watch.

But then zombie-OPS stops chewing, slowly picks up the phone, and dials the bridge. In his well-known I'm-still-totally-asleep voice, he says "heeeey. It's OPS. Could you... shift our barpat... yeah, one six five. Thanks."  And puts the phone down. And then he just sits there. Squinting. Waiting.

And then, ever so slowly, I realize that that big blazing spot of sun has begun to slide off the zombie's face and onto the wall behind him. After a moment it clears his face and he blinks slowly a few times and the brilliant beauty of what I've just witnessed begins to overwhelm me. By ordering the bridge to adjust the ship's back-and-forth patrol by about 15 degrees, he's changed our course just enough to reposition the sun off of his face. He's literally just redirected thousands of tons of steel and hundreds of people so that he could get the sun out of his eyes while he eats his bagel. I am in awe.

He slowly picks up his bagel and for a moment I'm terrified at the thought that his own genius may escape him, that he may never appreciate the epic brilliance of his laziness (since he's not going to wake up for another hour). But between his next bites he pauses, looks at me, and gives me the faintest, sly grin, before returning to gnaw slowly on his zombie bagel."

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 09:43:33 PM

Quote from: Ingsoc75 on April 13, 2018, 07:27:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2018, 09:58:13 AM
Oklahoma has a bill to increase speed limits to 80MPH on four turnpikes:

Turner Turnpike
Indian Nation Turnpike
H.E. Bailey Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike

http://ktul.com/news/local/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-some-turnpikes-passes-senate

I wish they would up non toll interstates to 75 in OK. The bill allowing this has been on the books for 20 years but they have kept them at 70.

I believe the bill passed and the speed limits will be increased but I would double check that. I can't recall why I think that perhaps it is just wishful thinking but I won't go look it up because I'm too lazy, but I'm not lazy enough to not share this funny story of someone else being lazy:

"I was once on a US military ship, having breakfast in the wardroom (officers lounge) when the Operations Officer (OPS) walks in. This guy was the definition of NOT a morning person; he's still half asleep, bleary eyed... basically a zombie with a bagel. He sits down across from me to eat his bagel and is just barely conscious. My back is to the outboard side of the ship, and the morning sun is blazing in one of the portholes putting a big bright-ass circle of light right on his barely conscious face. He's squinting and chewing and basically just remembering how to be alive for today. It's painful to watch.

But then zombie-OPS stops chewing, slowly picks up the phone, and dials the bridge. In his well-known I'm-still-totally-asleep voice, he says "heeeey. It's OPS. Could you... shift our barpat... yeah, one six five. Thanks."  And puts the phone down. And then he just sits there. Squinting. Waiting.

And then, ever so slowly, I realize that that big blazing spot of sun has begun to slide off the zombie's face and onto the wall behind him. After a moment it clears his face and he blinks slowly a few times and the brilliant beauty of what I've just witnessed begins to overwhelm me. By ordering the bridge to adjust the ship's back-and-forth patrol by about 15 degrees, he's changed our course just enough to reposition the sun off of his face. He's literally just redirected thousands of tons of steel and hundreds of people so that he could get the sun out of his eyes while he eats his bagel. I am in awe.

He slowly picks up his bagel and for a moment I'm terrified at the thought that his own genius may escape him, that he may never appreciate the epic brilliance of his laziness (since he's not going to wake up for another hour). But between his next bites he pauses, looks at me, and gives me the faintest, sly grin, before returning to gnaw slowly on his zombie bagel."

That was a funny story!   :-D

Updates:

Looks like Nebraska's 80 mph bill is dead.  There are some speed limit increases that were passed, but the 80 mph provision was removed from the final bill.  Also, I wonder what is the fate of Oklahoma's bill.  I know it passed the Oklahoma Senate last March, but has it been signed by the Governor?

Oklahoma passed a bill in 2016 that removed the numerical limit on highways and gave control to the highway department.  ODOT didn't expect that it would raise limits at the time.  I don't know if any limits were increased.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/speed-limits-not-expected-to-increase-under-new-law-odot/article_0221cd43-3978-5ff9-bb22-b1cb27f0a4b0.html (https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/speed-limits-not-expected-to-increase-under-new-law-odot/article_0221cd43-3978-5ff9-bb22-b1cb27f0a4b0.html)

A bill was considered this year that would have imposed a new cap of 85 on all roads.  Another would have authorized a speed limit of 80 on "the Turner Turnpike, Indian
Nation Turnpike, H.E. Bailey Turnpike and Cimarron Turnpike" for vehicles up to 12,000 pounds.  It's unclear (to me) whether this bill would have forced that increase or merely authorized it, and prohibited any increase above that level.  Each of these bills was passed by one chamber and died when the legislature adjourned for the year.

Under the 2016 legislation, unlimited increases are authorized. The bill to cap that at 85 failed.  My reading of the other bill is that it would have authorized, but not mandated, an increase to 80 on certain turnpikes, and would have prevented speed limits higher than that, which are already allowed.  That section of statute specifies maximum allowed limits, and nothing in the new bill clarified that it was a mandated change, so I read it as a decrease in the legal maximum that already exists.  To read it as a mandate would be inconsistent with the section, and would mean that a speed limit of 80 would have been required on the entirety of those roads, including through toll zones.

The existing Oklahoma statute reads: "no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of the following maximum limits: 1.  On a highway or part of a highway, unless otherwise established in law, a speed established by the Department of Transportation..."  No maximum is given.  It then lists exceptions such as school buses, schools zones, and parks.  No other authorization is needed for ODOT or OTA to raise speed limits to whatever they find to be acceptable.

I'm just wondering why OK hasn't upped the speed limit to 75 on non toll road interstates?

Revenue? Safety concerns? Budget issues?

Oklahoma is STILL talking about raising the speed limit on the turnpikes... they SHOULD raise the speed limits on Oklahoma's major freeways, NOT on the toll roads!!

Article:
https://okcfox.com/news/local/bill-proposed-to-increase-speed-on-some-oklahoma-toll-roads-from-75-to-80-mph

Also, North Dakota has revived a bill to increase speed limits to 80 mph:
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/jan/09/push-to-raise-speed-limit-on-interstates-in-north-dakota-to-80-mph/

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 24, 2019, 08:02:07 AM
Also, North Dakota has revived a bill to increase speed limits to 80 mph:
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/jan/09/push-to-raise-speed-limit-on-interstates-in-north-dakota-to-80-mph/

North Dakota has always seemed like a better fit for 80 than several of the other states that are 80.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 24, 2019, 03:52:16 AM
Oklahoma is STILL talking about raising the speed limit on the turnpikes... they SHOULD raise the speed limits on Oklahoma's major freeways, NOT on the toll roads!!

Article:
https://okcfox.com/news/local/bill-proposed-to-increase-speed-on-some-oklahoma-toll-roads-from-75-to-80-mph

With certain Turnpikes having grassy median humps with no inside shoulder, and others having naught but a cable barrier between carriageways, I don't think they need to have any higher speed limits.  The free roads, OTOH, should be 75 or 80 mph.

I was searching speed limit increase on Google, and I found this:

https://cdllife.com/2019/nine-states-consider-increasing-speed-limits/

EIGHT states are talking about changing their speed limits. The following are:

1. Minnesota- we already know what they are doing...
2. Iowa- currently have a bill in place to raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
3. California- this one totally surprised me!! They have a bill in place to raise the truck speed limit in rural areas to 65 mph from the current 55 mph...
4. Indiana- eliminate the truck speed limit on interstates
5. Missouri- same as Iowa... would raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
6. North Dakota- (third time already) bill in place to raise the speed limit to 80 mph from 75 mph on interstates AND raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on divided highways...
7. Oklahoma- we already know what they are doing...
8. Oregon- the city of Portland will set the speed limits within their city limits, not ODOT

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2019, 12:05:10 AM
I was searching speed limit increase on Google, and I found this:

https://cdllife.com/2019/nine-states-consider-increasing-speed-limits/

EIGHT states are talking about changing their speed limits. The following are:

1. Minnesota- we already know what they are doing...
2. Iowa- currently have a bill in place to raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
3. California- this one totally surprised me!! They have a bill in place to raise the truck speed limit in rural areas to 65 mph from the current 55 mph...
4. Indiana- eliminate the truck speed limit on interstates
5. Missouri- same as Iowa... would raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
6. North Dakota- (third time already) bill in place to raise the speed limit to 80 mph from 75 mph on interstates AND raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on divided highways...
7. Oklahoma- we already know what they are doing...
8. Oregon- the city of Portland will set the speed limits within their city limits, not ODOT

Could CA raise speed limits on interstates for cars to 75?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 01, 2019, 08:38:10 AM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2019, 12:05:10 AM
I was searching speed limit increase on Google, and I found this:

https://cdllife.com/2019/nine-states-consider-increasing-speed-limits/

EIGHT states are talking about changing their speed limits. The following are:

1. Minnesota- we already know what they are doing...
2. Iowa- currently have a bill in place to raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
3. California- this one totally surprised me!! They have a bill in place to raise the truck speed limit in rural areas to 65 mph from the current 55 mph...
4. Indiana- eliminate the truck speed limit on interstates
5. Missouri- same as Iowa... would raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
6. North Dakota- (third time already) bill in place to raise the speed limit to 80 mph from 75 mph on interstates AND raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on divided highways...
7. Oklahoma- we already know what they are doing...
8. Oregon- the city of Portland will set the speed limits within their city limits, not ODOT

Could CA raise speed limits on interstates for cars to 75?

Rural California could stand an 80 MPH or 130 km/h limit on parts of I-5, I-8, I-10, I-40, and CASR-58 the same as Nevada and Utah. I suspect that southern part of CASR-99 and the Eastern part of I-580 could handle the same. The legislation mentioned, however, only affects trucks.

Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2019, 10:06:51 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 01, 2019, 08:38:10 AM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2019, 12:05:10 AM
I was searching speed limit increase on Google, and I found this:

https://cdllife.com/2019/nine-states-consider-increasing-speed-limits/

EIGHT states are talking about changing their speed limits. The following are:

1. Minnesota- we already know what they are doing...
2. Iowa- currently have a bill in place to raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
3. California- this one totally surprised me!! They have a bill in place to raise the truck speed limit in rural areas to 65 mph from the current 55 mph...
4. Indiana- eliminate the truck speed limit on interstates
5. Missouri- same as Iowa... would raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
6. North Dakota- (third time already) bill in place to raise the speed limit to 80 mph from 75 mph on interstates AND raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on divided highways...
7. Oklahoma- we already know what they are doing...
8. Oregon- the city of Portland will set the speed limits within their city limits, not ODOT

Could CA raise speed limits on interstates for cars to 75?

Rural California could stand an 80 MPH or 130 km/h limit on parts of I-5, I-8, I-10, I-40, and CASR-58 the same as Nevada and Utah. I suspect that southern part of CASR-99 and the Eastern part of I-580 could handle the same. The legislation mentioned, however, only affects trucks.

I-15 and I-80 could also see some increases.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2019, 12:05:10 AM
2. Iowa- currently have a bill in place to raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates

I support this, considering Interstate traffic in Iowa tends do drive 79.995 mph.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 01, 2019, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2019, 10:06:51 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 01, 2019, 08:38:10 AM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2019, 12:05:10 AM
I was searching speed limit increase on Google, and I found this:

https://cdllife.com/2019/nine-states-consider-increasing-speed-limits/

EIGHT states are talking about changing their speed limits. The following are:

1. Minnesota- we already know what they are doing...
2. Iowa- currently have a bill in place to raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
3. California- this one totally surprised me!! They have a bill in place to raise the truck speed limit in rural areas to 65 mph from the current 55 mph...
4. Indiana- eliminate the truck speed limit on interstates
5. Missouri- same as Iowa... would raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on interstates
6. North Dakota- (third time already) bill in place to raise the speed limit to 80 mph from 75 mph on interstates AND raise the speed limit to 75 mph from 70 mph on divided highways...
7. Oklahoma- we already know what they are doing...
8. Oregon- the city of Portland will set the speed limits within their city limits, not ODOT

Could CA raise speed limits on interstates for cars to 75?

Rural California could stand an 80 MPH or 130 km/h limit on parts of I-5, I-8, I-10, I-40, and CASR-58 the same as Nevada and Utah. I suspect that southern part of CASR-99 and the Eastern part of I-580 could handle the same. The legislation mentioned, however, only affects trucks.

I-15 and I-80 could also see some increases.
[/quote

Sorry. I left I-15 out of my list by accident. If anything else on the list (or in the whole state) could get a higher limit, I-15 certainly could (especially North/East of Barstow). I-80 was posted 70MPH between West Sacramento and Fairfield prior to 1974. I believe that parts of I-680 (maybe part of CASR-12 or 24 at the time) were as well.

What happened back in 1992 was that the California Legislature revived the pre-1974 text almost word-for-word, but put a "default 55MPH" provision in for single-lane and urban divided non-freeways. There wasn't a single dissenting vote in ether house. I am sure that we could get something of an increase through, but no one has tried to my knowledge.

https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/feb/13/speed-limit-increase-bill-defeated/
https://www.kxnet.com/news/bismarck-news/speed-limit-increase-bill-fails-in-nd-house-on-a-tie-vote/1779325961

Well, it looks like another failure of raising the speed limit to 80 mph on North Dakota's interstates...  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Oklahoma speed limit increases progressing forward. I hope it becomes a reality!

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/bill-to-up-speed-limits-on-turnpikes-rural-highways-clears/article_b8747d88-4afb-59b6-accd-087a073384e8.html

QuoteA new report by Christopher Monsere and Sirisha Kothuri, researchers in Portland State University's department of civil and environmental engineering, found a direct correlation between increased speed limits and an increase in serious crashes in Eastern Oregon. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) funded the study examining issues related to changes in posted speed limits.

Speed limits on approximately 1,400 miles of highways and interstates in Eastern Oregon were increased by the Oregon legislature effective March 1, 2016. Using four years of data, Monsere, Kothuri and researcher Jason Anderson examined speeds in relation to crash frequency and severity from the year after the speed limits increased compared with the three previous years. On sections where the speed limit was raised to 65 mph for trucks (primarily the interstates), truck-involved crashes more than doubled.

In response to this study, ODOT is already taking some safety measures after PSU's analysis.

https://trec.pdx.edu/news/higher-speed-limits-lead-increase-serious-crashes-eastern-oregon

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 14, 2019, 12:14:34 AM
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/feb/13/speed-limit-increase-bill-defeated/
https://www.kxnet.com/news/bismarck-news/speed-limit-increase-bill-fails-in-nd-house-on-a-tie-vote/1779325961

Well, it looks like another failure of raising the speed limit to 80 mph on North Dakota's interstates...  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

ND had a MJ legalization bill which failed by 4 votes in their House.  No weed!  No speed!  LOL!

Rick

WV proposes to raise the speed limits on interstates to 75 mph EXCEPT Interstate 70...

http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/community/2019/03/bill-in-the-west-virginia-legislature-would-allow-west-virginia-department-of-transportation-to-increase-speed-limits-to-75-mph-changes-on-interstate-70-unlikely/

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on March 08, 2019, 02:39:03 AM
WV proposes to raise the speed limits on interstates to 75 mph EXCEPT Interstate 70...

http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/community/2019/03/bill-in-the-west-virginia-legislature-would-allow-west-virginia-department-of-transportation-to-increase-speed-limits-to-75-mph-changes-on-interstate-70-unlikely/

Well I-70 in mostly urban.

It's also a short connection between two states that aren't 75 mph.

IIRC from our 2017 trip, the I-64 part of the West Virginia Turnpike was mostly posted at 60 mph. Hard to imagine that getting 75 or even 70.

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2019, 01:32:27 PM
It's also a short connection between two states that aren't 75 mph.

In that case, are they increasing I-470?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2019, 02:07:41 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2019, 01:32:27 PM
It's also a short connection between two states that aren't 75 mph.

In that case, are they increasing I-470?

To be determined. The law authorizes the DOT secretary to consider applying 75 mph speed limits "where appropriate". It doesn't require them to be posted. Much like Michigan's slow rollout of 75 mph speed limits, I suspect West Virginia is not going to be in a great hurry to deploy them.

Kinda surprised that Massachusetts is thinking about raising the speed limit to 70 mph from 65 mph...  :clap: :clap: :clap:

http://www.landlinemag.com/story.aspx?storyid=74033#.XK1wNphKhPY

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on April 10, 2019, 12:29:45 AM
Kinda surprised that Massachusetts is thinking about raising the speed limit to 70 mph from 65 mph...  :clap: :clap: :clap:

http://www.landlinemag.com/story.aspx?storyid=74033#.XK1wNphKhPY

If such does indeed becomes reality; it'll be the highest speed limit ever posted in the Bay State.

Good news for Oklahoma drivers!! The gov. signed a bill to raise the speed limit from 75 mph to 80 mph on the turnpikes & raise the freeways from 70 mph to 75 mph...

https://www.krmg.com/news/local/stitt-signs-bill-increasing-turnpike-speed-limit/n6wkts1XckkfZyOnbV2G4I/
http://www.kswo.com/2019/04/18/gov-kevin-stitt-signs-bill-raise-speed-limit-turnpikes-some-highways/

Unfortunately it won't raise it on all turnpikes though it should. Even the urban turnpikes should be 80MPH as traffic already moves at that speed. I am anxious for OkDOT to make I-35 and I-40 75MPH through the state. I-35 for the most part through OKC should be 70 MPH with some exceptions. There are some sketchy parts of I-40 I can understand a lower speed limit. The new Crosstown should be 75MPH.

https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/

Here we go again with ND's speed limit increase... they are considering raising the speed limits on I-94 and I-29 in rural interstate sections from 75 to 80 with funds to upgrade barricades between lanes. They definitely need to do it since SD has raised their speed limits to 80 as well!

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 17, 2021, 01:21:54 AM
https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/

Here we go again with ND's speed limit increase... they are considering raising the speed limits on I-94 and I-29 in rural interstate sections from 75 to 80 with funds to upgrade barricades between lanes. They definitely need to do it since SD has raised their speed limits to 80 as well!

I'm really surprised with ND's reticence to 80 MPH. As you point out, SD is now 80, MT is now 80, and WY is now 80. As far as I know, the accident and fatality rates really haven't changed all that much in those states, especially on the long, open, straight stretches of highway that make up much of these states' Interstate system.

Here comes Forbes with an anti-speed limit increase piece:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2021/02/10/why-experts-say-raising-speed-limits-is-a-bad-idea/?sh=37968c393e2f

That article says nothing about frequency of collisions. Of course a higher speed one is going to be more severe; nobody is arguing against that.

Imagine that the speed limit is 55, and everyone is going 70, except for the 10% that strictly follow 55 mph. There's a 15 mph difference here. If the speed limit is increased to 70, traffic will average 74 mph (it's a 2-3 mph increase for every 10 mph increase in the speed limit), and those following the speed limit will be going 70 – only 4 mph difference, and much less chance of a crash.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 17, 2021, 01:21:54 AM
https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/

Here we go again with ND's speed limit increase... they are considering raising the speed limits on I-94 and I-29 in rural interstate sections from 75 to 80 with funds to upgrade barricades between lanes. They definitely need to do it since SD has raised their speed limits to 80 as well!

Can't believe ND and Nebraska aren't 80, these plains states seem like better fits for 80 than Montana or Idaho.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 11, 2021, 02:54:34 PM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 17, 2021, 01:21:54 AM
https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/ (https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/)

Here we go again with ND's speed limit increase... they are considering raising the speed limits on I-94 and I-29 in rural interstate sections from 75 to 80 with funds to upgrade barricades between lanes. They definitely need to do it since SD has raised their speed limits to 80 as well!

Can't believe ND and Nebraska aren't 80, these plains states seem like better fits for 80 than Montana or Idaho.

I think New Mexico can handle 80 mph limits on I-25 between Las Cruces and ABQ, I-10 between the AZ border and Las Cruces (with Lordsburg and Deming raised to 70 mph), and I-25 between Las Vegas and Raton.  Arizona is a bit more difficult, with the easiest being I-8 between Yuma and Casa Grande, but the reluctance of the state's lawmakers to change the state's criminal speeding law has been a roadblock to increasing speed limits in the state.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
Here comes Forbes with an anti-speed limit increase piece:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2021/02/10/why-experts-say-raising-speed-limits-is-a-bad-idea/?sh=37968c393e2f

Ah, yes, the IIHS.  Not exactly an unbiased source.

Have they considered that the reason people driver faster than the speed limit is because freeway speed limits in much of the US are so slow that they're a joke?

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Imagine that the speed limit is 55, and everyone is going 70, except for the 10% that strictly follow 55 mph. There's a 15 mph difference here. If the speed limit is increased to 70, traffic will average 74 mph (it's a 2-3 mph increase for every 10 mph increase in the speed limit), and those following the speed limit will be going 70 – only 4 mph difference, and much less chance of a crash.

I have a hard time believing that everyone going 55 will automatically go 70 simply because a sign says its okay. We always argue that drivers go the speed they feel is safe, and I'd argue that many drivers go 55 to 65 because that's the speed they feel is safe. Be it because of their age, because of their car, or because of some other factor.

Now yes, increasing the limit would likely decrease the number of drivers going substantially slower than the prevailing speed because some drivers will indeed speed up when the limit is increased. But I'm not totally convinced there are enough "speed limiters" out there for that to make a reasonable impact on roadway safety.

I am personally in favor of variable limits. During the day, 70 to 80 is perfectly safe, but a limit of 60 or 50 seems wiser during peak hours to help tighten everyone up and use more of the road. Not to mention cutting down on drivers flying head-first into stopped traffic (this is mostly unavoidable but maybe we can get drivers to slow down a little?).

I think there are really four groups of drivers:

(1) People who, for whatever reason (elderly, POS car, third-world immigrant not accustomed to fast highways, whatever), are afraid to go even as fast as the speed limit under ordinary conditions.

(2) People who feel they should obey the speed limit because it's the law but would like to go faster.

(3) People who generally go at a speed they deem comfortable and are willing to exceed the speed limit by some amount to do that as long as it isn't by so much that they might stand out (or, in some cases like Virginia's reckless driving law, they might risk a more severe ticket).

(4) People who don't care what the speed limit is and will just go as fast as they want.

I'd argue that groups 1 and 4 are the real problem groups. If you increase the speed limit, the average speed of traffic will increase due to group 2 speeding up and, to a much lesser degree, some people in group 3 speeding up. Group 1 won't speed up and group 4 were already going faster anyway.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 10:05:09 PM
(4) People who don't care what the speed limit is and will just go as fast as they want.

Chicagoland has a lot from this group.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 10:05:09 PM
(2) People who feel they should obey the speed limit because it's the law but would like to go faster.

That's me. I know the day I speed a police officer will pull me over.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 10:05:09 PM
(3) People who generally go at a speed they deem comfortable and are willing to exceed the speed limit by some amount to do that as long as it isn't by so much that they might stand out.

This is the rest of Houston.

I agree with 1 that the difference between speeds is a better metric to gauge traffic safety than the speed itself. For example, driving on US 59 in east Texas feels and is safer than driving on rural TX-288. Why? With US 59, the speed limit is 75. The speed is fast enough that groups 2, 3 and even 4 travel around the same speed and more likely will not be as aggressive passing. TX-288 is 65 mph. When I'm doing 65 on 288, people from groups 3 and 4 going 75 or even 80 blow by me because they are comfortable going faster than the speed limit.

And here's the kicker. I pass more people on US 59 than I do on 288, even though 288 has a bit more traffic! When I'm going the speed limit on 59, the other drivers who are mostly from group 3 are going around 72-75 because that's the speed they feel comfortable at. So I, who likes to drive as fast as possible within the law, pass people regularly on that road. On 288, everyone passes me, even though I feel comfortable going their speed! It's rare for me to pass more than one person per 10 minutes because the speed limit is too low for the other drivers; they still feel comfortable driving 75 here, too.

I like jake's idea of variable speed limits because of this. Most roads do not have a universally safe and comfortable speed limit, because of traffic, weather, and other variables. If 288 had a speed limit of 75 during the day and 65 at night and at rush hour, that would be amazing.

Quote from: vdeane on February 11, 2021, 08:49:07 PM
Ah, yes, the IIHS.  Not exactly an unbiased source.

Have they considered that the reason people driver faster than the speed limit is because freeway speed limits in much of the US are so slow that they're a joke?

Ehhhh....  For a state considering a bump in Interstate speed limit from 75 to 80 mph, I have a hard time calling the existing 75 mph limit "a joke".

75 mph is equivalent to 120 km/h, which is the maximum speed limit in Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Chile, South Africa, Morocco, Turkey...  It's technically the maximum speed limit in Mexico, but the only highway I've ever personally seen it on has since decreased it to 110 km/h.

---

Quote from: Revive 755 on February 11, 2021, 10:28:54 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 10:05:09 PM
(4) People who don't care what the speed limit is and will just go as fast as they want.

Chicagoland has a lot from this group.

Back when I lived in the Chicago area, there seemed to be a general idea that, on the expressways, 75 mph was perfectly fine but over 80 would get you a ticket–no matter what the speed limit was.  There were a few speed demons out there, but most traffic just kept it under 80.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 11, 2021, 02:54:34 PM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 17, 2021, 01:21:54 AM
https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/

Here we go again with ND's speed limit increase... they are considering raising the speed limits on I-94 and I-29 in rural interstate sections from 75 to 80 with funds to upgrade barricades between lanes. They definitely need to do it since SD has raised their speed limits to 80 as well!

Can't believe ND and Nebraska aren't 80, these plains states seem like better fits for 80 than Montana or Idaho.

ND and NE seem like great fits for 80 MPH limits as well, but a comment like that suggest to me you've never been to southern Idaho, because a lot of it looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1957347,-115.7930363,3a,43.8y,323.01h,87.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGlDTb005ipVWhTOKsga_jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

I-90 is Idaho's outlier (for interstates), and it never hits 80 MPH. It varies between 55 and 75.

Quote from: doorknob60 on February 12, 2021, 01:06:43 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 11, 2021, 02:54:34 PM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 17, 2021, 01:21:54 AM
https://cdllife.com/2021/north-dakota-lawmakers-consider-80-mph-speed-limits/

Here we go again with ND's speed limit increase... they are considering raising the speed limits on I-94 and I-29 in rural interstate sections from 75 to 80 with funds to upgrade barricades between lanes. They definitely need to do it since SD has raised their speed limits to 80 as well!

Can't believe ND and Nebraska aren't 80, these plains states seem like better fits for 80 than Montana or Idaho.

ND and NE seem like great fits for 80 MPH limits as well, but a comment like that suggest to me you've never been to southern Idaho, because a lot of it looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1957347,-115.7930363,3a,43.8y,323.01h,87.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGlDTb005ipVWhTOKsga_jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

I-90 is Idaho's outlier (for interstates), and it never hits 80 MPH. It varies between 55 and 75.

And similarly for Montana, I think people don't realize that the eastern portion of the state IS the plains.   It's not all Legends of the Fall.

https://tinyurl.com/u9u2st2z (https://tinyurl.com/u9u2st2z)

Chris

I'm not really a fan of making speed limits variable.  Judging individual conditions is a require skill for drivers, and driving too fast for conditions is illegal, regardless of what the sign says.  It's hard to get the exact speed that's safe for changing conditions, so usually the sign is off, either having a limit that's too high and would be unsafe anyways (in which case, why bother), or a limit that's too low (ditto, with an addition of aggravation for those of us who like to follow or at least acknowledge the speed limit).

Quote from: kphoger on February 12, 2021, 01:03:28 PM
Ehhhh....  For a state considering a bump in Interstate speed limit from 75 to 80 mph, I have a hard time calling the existing 75 mph limit "a joke".

75 mph is equivalent to 120 km/h, which is the maximum speed limit in Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Chile, South Africa, Morocco, Turkey...  It's technically the maximum speed limit in Mexico, but the only highway I've ever personally seen it on has since decreased it to 110 km/h.

Well, I did say much of the country.  I come from a state where the maximum is only 65 even though that feels very slow on rural interstates (many interstates in urban/suburban areas - including everything south of I-287 - are only 55, the same as rinky-dink two-lane roads); one needs to go 70-75 to really feel comfortable, especially in a sedan.  The geometry on interstates in the northeast isn't really any worse than anywhere else, we just have lower speed limits (as if "population density" magically means everyone needs to go slower).

I would love to go exactly the speed limit, but it would feel like I'm crawling, and my drive times would diverge too far from Google Maps predictions.  In practice, I'm a hybrid of types 2 and 3 (outside of DC, where I'm firmly type 2 due to zero tolerance speed cameras) - I usually go 5 over on surface roads and 7 over on freeways unless conditions require otherwise, though I start to taper that on speed limits of 70 and above (I used to have a NJ Turnpike exemption due to lack of enforcement, but I abandoned that in the name of greater consistency).  I don't have a formula for Canada; if I remember right, the last time I was there, I used somewhere between 5-10 kph for surface roads and 12-15 kph for autoroutes, but since then, the use of zero or unknown/variable tolerance speed cameras has really proliferated.

And to have some real-life example of speed limit consequences, let's look at another thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28523.0
Speeds clearly played a role in the event, so maybe people are not that good at adjusting speed to conditions as we want to believe?

Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2021, 09:04:47 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Imagine that the speed limit is 55, and everyone is going 70, except for the 10% that strictly follow 55 mph. There's a 15 mph difference here. If the speed limit is increased to 70, traffic will average 74 mph (it's a 2-3 mph increase for every 10 mph increase in the speed limit), and those following the speed limit will be going 70 – only 4 mph difference, and much less chance of a crash.

I have a hard time believing that everyone going 55 will automatically go 70 simply because a sign says its okay. We always argue that drivers go the speed they feel is safe, and I'd argue that many drivers go 55 to 65 because that's the speed they feel is safe. Be it because of their age, because of their car, or because of some other factor.

When I drove I-94 and part of I-90 in 1996, when Montana had no fixed daytime open-highway speed limits for cars, there were quite a few people who didn't take advantage, and drove about 65mph (thankfully in the right lane).

That slowed me down, so I could keep the speed differential within reason. Only east of Billings, when the traffic thinned out, was I able to top 100mph. (That was in a new BMW, purchased with that kind of drive in mind. My current rides are much slower.)

Speaking of variable speed limits, I present today's experience on a couple of bridges.  Crossing the Tappan Zee this morning, the speed limit was reduced to 45.  Why?  I assume due to weather, but the road was absolutely fine.  Traffic was wizzing by at 65-70, and the 52 I was going (per my formula and the 45 mph limit) felt VERY slow (mind you, even my usual 62 feels slow on the Thruway north of Yonkers, to the point where I need to use cruise control to keep my speed under control).  Meanwhile on the Throggs Neck, the speed limit was down to 35, but I took that one as advisory as the speed limit signs are not variable there, and the limit was conveyed via one line in a very long VMS message that was impossible to read in its entirety while driving (I didn't see it until I had nearly finished crossing and passed the second or third VMS sign; the message actually took somewhere between 9-12 lines on signs that can only display three at once); no idea if that one was a MTA thing or a NYCDOT thing.

I would submit that if a speed limit is low enough that I need to use cruise control to resist the temptation to speed, then it is too low and needs to be raised.

Quote from: kalvado on February 12, 2021, 08:26:43 PM
And to have some real-life example of speed limit consequences, let's look at another thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28523.0
Speeds clearly played a role in the event, so maybe people are not that good at adjusting speed to conditions as we want to believe?

If people can't drive in winter weather, then they should stay off the roads when it happens.  Just because your area is normally missing a season is no excuse - stay home if you can't handle it.  If I had my way, winter driving would be part of the road test; with realistic driving simulators that can re-create all sorts of conditions, it should be possible.  I should not have to suffer on account of the stupidity and ineptitude of other people.

I don't know how variable limits would have helped, though.  I have never seen a variable limit that actually matched what conditions require.  Always too high (in which case, what is the point?) or too low (in which case it invites non-compliance).

Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2021, 08:05:04 PMI don't know how variable limits would have helped, though.  I have never seen a variable limit that actually matched what conditions require.  Always too high (in which case, what is the point?) or too low (in which case it invites non-compliance).

I am not sure variable limits are technologically mature enough for us to conclude "they don't work."  One of the ideas I was turning around in my head was using remote sensing (e.g., RWIS sensors determining that bridge decks are icing) in combination with expert systems to impose speed limit reductions that are coupled with specific warning messages.  If these systems are seen to work well without crying wolf, they might attract better compliance than has so far been observed with variable limits.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 15, 2021, 01:24:29 AM

Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2021, 08:05:04 PMI don't know how variable limits would have helped, though.  I have never seen a variable limit that actually matched what conditions require.  Always too high (in which case, what is the point?) or too low (in which case it invites non-compliance).

I am not sure variable limits are technologically mature enough for us to conclude "they don't work."  One of the ideas I was turning around in my head was using remote sensing (e.g., RWIS sensors determining that bridge decks are icing) in combination with expert systems to impose speed limit reductions that are coupled with specific warning messages.  If these systems are seen to work well without crying wolf, they might attract better compliance than has so far been observed with variable limits.

Speed limit signs, even variable ones, are taken as a joke - they are too out of touch with reality. some meaningful messages (maybe color coded? How to differentiate from traffic lights?) may be more meaningful - until they become abuse (that would happen pretty quickly, though)

I love the idea of variable limits, but from my experience I'd agree they're a joke. Take the Maine Turnpike as an example - they've now done away with the variable signs on the Turnpike (though I think they still post a lower limit on VMSs?), but I've seen plenty of times they're still flashing 45 the next day after a snowstorm, when the road is perfectly clear bare pavement, and traffic is still moving at the normal 70-75. Sure, during a snowstorm 45 is fine, but not a full day after the snow stops.

I don't think any state DOT actually has the resources to manage a variable speed limit with the level of hands-on attention it would require to have it accurately reflect the current driving conditions at any given time. And until they do, compliance will be very poor.

We have variable speed limits here on the HO/T lanes on I-95 and I-395. I can't say I ever recall seeing them reduced, though–the normal speed limit in those lanes is 65, and I haven't seen it lowered. I suspect they might do so if there's an accident or similar, but I don't know.

I used to be someone who would pretty much go as fast as I thought I could get away with when I was out on rural highways, but I don't do that anymore because I like our relatively low insurance premium. I'm reasonably content to keep it to 70 mph in most 70-mph zones. When the speed limit is lower than that on an Interstate I'll likely go faster, though, if the road is suitable–for example, in the 55-mph zone on the Beltway I try to keep it to 65 (I don't pass too many people, of course, and going 55 is arguably dangerous because it's so much slower than everyone else). "If the road is suitable" is intended to recognize that there are some bad designs (the BQE in New York; I-68 through Cumberland) where a slower speed is totally appropriate.

The 95 express lanes do lower the variable speed limits for lane blockage but I have never seen it lowered for weather conditions

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2021, 04:49:13 PM
I love the idea of variable limits, but from my experience I'd agree they're a joke. Take the Maine Turnpike as an example - they've now done away with the variable signs on the Turnpike (though I think they still post a lower limit on VMSs?), but I've seen plenty of times they're still flashing 45 the next day after a snowstorm, when the road is perfectly clear bare pavement, and traffic is still moving at the normal 70-75. Sure, during a snowstorm 45 is fine, but not a full day after the snow stops.

I don't think any state DOT actually has the resources to manage a variable speed limit with the level of hands-on attention it would require to have it accurately reflect the current driving conditions at any given time. And until they do, compliance will be very poor.

I agree with this. There is a variable speed section of I-84 near Baker City, OR. The default is 70 MPH. One time I was driving through there and it was lowered to 45 for ice. The road was well maintained by that point and while not completely dry, there was no new precipitation coming down and it was very safe at 65-70.

Here's one that's partially just a limitation of the system,  I ran into a reduced 45 MPH speed limit for thick fog. When I first saw the sign, it was still clear as day with excellent visibility. I kept going my usual 75-78. A few miles later, we actually did hit fog, so the signs weren't completely crazy. Though 45 was still quite slow for that level of fog (possibly to the point of being unsafe by impeding traffic), I felt totally fine at 60-65. The problem is outside of that patch of fog, the road was completely fine at 70, but the variable speeds were not precise enough to line up with reality. I would hope police would not take the signs too literally in that case.

I've also only seen those variable signs at 70, 55, and 45. I don't think they ever use 60 or 65, which is too bad because I think that would be appropriate in many moderate conditions where 55 would feel like a crawl. I think this is ODOT's test for variable speeds though, I expect them to expand over the Blue Mountains at some point, where I think they'll be a lot more useful (the 70 MPH speed limit through there is fairly generous even in summer, but the road can get treacherous in winter and I can see even 35-45 MPH being used somewhat often). I hope we don't lose the generous 70 on Cabbage Hill in summer in the process though, that makes it a fun drive.

Variable speeds on limited access roads are a longstanding concept; I remember those neon speed limit signs on the NJ Turnpike that would change to a lower speed during inclement conditions.  Not just those classic big neon signs, but speed limit only signs.  Does it work? Maybe - it depends how and when it's used.  If the authorities don't stay up to date with conditions, as mentioned above, people will ignore them. 

Another twist on the concept that I've seen is variable speeds by lane.  I believe that there's a bit of this in Ontario, but Argentina is where I remember this best with the nice wide, 6 to 8 lane (each direction) freeways.  The left lanes were 130 km/h, with slower speeds for each rightward lane down to 50 km/h for the far right.  Sounds cool in theory, but something that I would love to remind politicians and bureaucrats who come up with speed limits applies here: speed isn't dangerous in itself under normal road conditions, it's differences in speed between vehicles that is the most likely cause of problems. So, if you have an 80 km/h (50 mph) difference in speed between vehicles on the same roadway, there will eventually be problems. This is the same beef I have with many states' artificially low speed limits: some people will follow them but many/most will not.  And those differences in speed create conflicts and collisions.

Quote from: doorknob60 on February 16, 2021, 06:31:34 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2021, 04:49:13 PM
I love the idea of variable limits, but from my experience I'd agree they're a joke. Take the Maine Turnpike as an example - they've now done away with the variable signs on the Turnpike (though I think they still post a lower limit on VMSs?), but I've seen plenty of times they're still flashing 45 the next day after a snowstorm, when the road is perfectly clear bare pavement, and traffic is still moving at the normal 70-75. Sure, during a snowstorm 45 is fine, but not a full day after the snow stops.

I don't think any state DOT actually has the resources to manage a variable speed limit with the level of hands-on attention it would require to have it accurately reflect the current driving conditions at any given time. And until they do, compliance will be very poor.

I agree with this. There is a variable speed section of I-84 near Baker City, OR. The default is 70 MPH. One time I was driving through there and it was lowered to 45 for ice. The road was well maintained by that point and while not completely dry, there was no new precipitation coming down and it was very safe at 65-70.

Here's one that's partially just a limitation of the system,  I ran into a reduced 45 MPH speed limit for thick fog. When I first saw the sign, it was still clear as day with excellent visibility. I kept going my usual 75-78. A few miles later, we actually did hit fog, so the signs weren't completely crazy. Though 45 was still quite slow for that level of fog (possibly to the point of being unsafe by impeding traffic), I felt totally fine at 60-65. The problem is outside of that patch of fog, the road was completely fine at 70, but the variable speeds were not precise enough to line up with reality. I would hope police would not take the signs too literally in that case.

I've also only seen those variable signs at 70, 55, and 45. I don't think they ever use 60 or 65, which is too bad because I think that would be appropriate in many moderate conditions where 55 would feel like a crawl. I think this is ODOT's test for variable speeds though, I expect them to expand over the Blue Mountains at some point, where I think they'll be a lot more useful (the 70 MPH speed limit through there is fairly generous even in summer, but the road can get treacherous in winter and I can see even 35-45 MPH being used somewhat often). I hope we don't lose the generous 70 on Cabbage Hill in summer in the process though, that makes it a fun drive.

The problem with variable speed limits is that the view that the department of transportation has is too broad and the view that the highway patrol has is too narrow. The DoT could hear or detect situations that require a temporary speed limit reduction, but their ability to do so is on a rather macro level. On I-5, for instance, speed limit signs are only placed just after entrances or every 10 miles, if the distance is longer. Do you want to reduce the speed limit for the whole 20-something miles between Utica Ave and Twisselman Rd because of one really gnarly patch of fog at PM KIN 1.0 where the speed limit should rightly be about 15 MPH, but only for about a mile or two? No, what you want in that situation is for the CHP to run a traffic break starting in an area of good visibility and slow everyone down gradually and escort them through at an appropriate speed.

How do you fix this? Unless variable speed limit signs are visible, frequent (every couple hundred meters), and show reasonable limits and DoTs have really good monitoring capabilities and much greater abilities and Highway Patrols can tie into it, varible speed limits won't really work.

Quote from: StogieGuy7 on February 17, 2021, 12:11:24 PM
Another twist on the concept that I've seen is variable speeds by lane.  I believe that there's a bit of this in Ontario, but Argentina is where I remember this best with the nice wide, 6 to 8 lane (each direction) freeways.  The left lanes were 130 km/h, with slower speeds for each rightward lane down to 50 km/h for the far right.  Sounds cool in theory, but something that I would love to remind politicians and bureaucrats who come up with speed limits applies here: speed isn't dangerous in itself under normal road conditions, it's differences in speed between vehicles that is the most likely cause of problems. So, if you have an 80 km/h (50 mph) difference in speed between vehicles on the same roadway, there will eventually be problems. This is the same beef I have with many states' artificially low speed limits: some people will follow them but many/most will not.  And those differences in speed create conflicts and collisions.

Ack. See, that "twist" is the standard operating procedure for WSDOT in the Seattle region. All variable limits in the region use per-lane signage, many with accompanying VMS displays. This is the only kind of variable limit I've ever seen deployed successfully, and it's the only one I'd personally recommend. At least from experience. There's a reason most (all?) European countries use this style.

The primary idea is for them to be used for lane-specific messages, not necessarily per-lane limits. Around here, the GP lanes are usually the same limit, with the HOV showing something different if there's some extra traffic.

As an example of how they can be used, a caution arrow used to warn of heavy merging traffic (https://goo.gl/maps/gMBmxey33PTkP4276):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50952906378_327d8ab07d_o.png)

Or you can have lane closed signage:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2grf1ZU4AAlHw_.jpg)

Quote from: michravera on February 17, 2021, 12:17:09 PM

Quote from: doorknob60 on February 16, 2021, 06:31:34 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2021, 04:49:13 PM
I love the idea of variable limits, but from my experience I'd agree they're a joke. Take the Maine Turnpike as an example - they've now done away with the variable signs on the Turnpike (though I think they still post a lower limit on VMSs?), but I've seen plenty of times they're still flashing 45 the next day after a snowstorm, when the road is perfectly clear bare pavement, and traffic is still moving at the normal 70-75. Sure, during a snowstorm 45 is fine, but not a full day after the snow stops.

I don't think any state DOT actually has the resources to manage a variable speed limit with the level of hands-on attention it would require to have it accurately reflect the current driving conditions at any given time. And until they do, compliance will be very poor.

I agree with this. There is a variable speed section of I-84 near Baker City, OR. The default is 70 MPH. One time I was driving through there and it was lowered to 45 for ice. The road was well maintained by that point and while not completely dry, there was no new precipitation coming down and it was very safe at 65-70.

Here's one that's partially just a limitation of the system,  I ran into a reduced 45 MPH speed limit for thick fog. When I first saw the sign, it was still clear as day with excellent visibility. I kept going my usual 75-78. A few miles later, we actually did hit fog, so the signs weren't completely crazy. Though 45 was still quite slow for that level of fog (possibly to the point of being unsafe by impeding traffic), I felt totally fine at 60-65. The problem is outside of that patch of fog, the road was completely fine at 70, but the variable speeds were not precise enough to line up with reality. I would hope police would not take the signs too literally in that case.

I've also only seen those variable signs at 70, 55, and 45. I don't think they ever use 60 or 65, which is too bad because I think that would be appropriate in many moderate conditions where 55 would feel like a crawl. I think this is ODOT's test for variable speeds though, I expect them to expand over the Blue Mountains at some point, where I think they'll be a lot more useful (the 70 MPH speed limit through there is fairly generous even in summer, but the road can get treacherous in winter and I can see even 35-45 MPH being used somewhat often). I hope we don't lose the generous 70 on Cabbage Hill in summer in the process though, that makes it a fun drive.

The problem with variable speed limits is that the view that the department of transportation has is too broad and the view that the highway patrol has is too narrow. The DoT could hear or detect situations that require a temporary speed limit reduction, but their ability to do so is on a rather macro level. On I-5, for instance, speed limit signs are only placed just after entrances or every 10 miles, if the distance is longer. Do you want to reduce the speed limit for the whole 20-something miles between Utica Ave and Twisselman Rd because of one really gnarly patch of fog at PM KIN 1.0 where the speed limit should rightly be about 15 MPH, but only for about a mile or two? No, what you want in that situation is for the CHP to run a traffic break starting in an area of good visibility and slow everyone down gradually and escort them through at an appropriate speed.

How do you fix this? Unless variable speed limit signs are visible, frequent (every couple hundred meters), and show reasonable limits and DoTs have really good monitoring capabilities and much greater abilities and Highway Patrols can tie into it, varible speed limits won't really work.

You make a good argument that these speeds should be advisory, like the speed on most yellow signs warning of tight curves.  The speed limits are advisory and generally for a short stretch.

Quote from: mrsman on February 17, 2021, 02:38:56 PM
...

You make a good argument that these speeds should be advisory, like the speed on most yellow signs warning of tight curves.  The speed limits are advisory and generally for a short stretch.

Yeah definitely. I think there is a time and place for actual lowered speed limit, like if the highway is packed snow for example, but in most cases I think advisory speeds may be more appropriate.