Current state speed limit increase proposals

[1995hoo]

https://landline.media/speed-limit-revisions-discussed-in-eight-statehouses/

Update on some state's speed limit proposals from West Virginia, North Dakota (failed again), Indiana (get rid of split speed limits failed again), Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont (which they are crazy enough to lower the speed limits on freeways to 55).

Hmmm....

One Maryland bill is intended to reduce abrupt changes in speed limits for vehicles entering or exiting Interstate 495. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.

As introduced, SB297 would require all expressways and interstate highways that connect with I-495 to have the same maximum speed limit at the point of connection for at least 5 miles from the point of entrance to or exit from I-495.

Affected roadways are Interstates 270, 95 and 295, and U.S. 50.

I-295 isn't in Maryland for five miles. How the heck would that work? Raise the speed limit on I-295 for the smidgen of road (less than a mile) that's in Maryland? That's stupid. While DC's 50-mph limit is low, it doesn't make sense to change it in Maryland if DC won't go along.

[jeffandnicole]

https://landline.media/speed-limit-revisions-discussed-in-eight-statehouses/

Update on some state's speed limit proposals from West Virginia, North Dakota (failed again), Indiana (get rid of split speed limits failed again), Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont (which they are crazy enough to lower the speed limits on freeways to 55).

In NJ, many/most bills are automatically transferred into the following year's legislative session.  The speed limit bill isn't currently being pursued, but if they decide to discuss and debate it, it's available for them to do so.  It makes it sound like news that a bill was introduced, but it's really nothing more than Netflix auto-starting the next program in a series you're binge-watching.

[vdeane]

I hope that Vermont bill fails.  If anything, the speed limit on their interstates needs to be raised to 70 or even 75, not reduced to 55!  Heck, if both the VT and NH bills went through, that would result in a 20 mph speed limit change from crossing an arbitrary line on a map.

I'm scratching my head at West Virginia.  If the law permits 75 but nothing's posted above 70, what's the point of raising the maximum permissible limit to 80?

That Maryland one is... interesting.  I think the idea that speed limits need to match the Beltway to prevent "sudden speed changes" for 5 miles is absurd (by that logic, why not make the speed limit on every expressway/freeway in the country the same?), but it looks like we'd get more 70 zones out of it, which is odd considering how MD has been selective about applying 70 so far.  Another headscratcher.

[1995hoo]

There is almost no chance of a 70-mph speed limit being posted on the Beltway in Maryland, especially west of the Mormon Temple, and even more especially on the Outer Loop near the I-270 Spur where the trucks keep overturning.

[sprjus4]

^

While I'll agree some portions of the Beltway, particularly between I-95 North and I-270 are definitely not suited for a speed higher than maybe 60 mph, the majority of the road that includes the I-95 overlap could definitely handle at least 65 mph if not 70 mph.

If they're ever going to bump that segment of I-495 to 70 mph, they should also increase I-95 between the Beltways from 65 mph to 70 mph, and I-95 north of Baltimore to 70 mph. Why the latter hasn't happened, considering all of I-70 was increased, is beyond me.

[1995hoo]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but as a practical matter, and recognizing we are talking about Maryland, I would be absolutely shocked to see 70-mph speed limits anywhere on the Beltway. Even 65 might be surprising (consider that Virginia, which has on the whole been more amenable to raising speed limits than Maryland has, posts 65 mph only in the HO/T lanes). Except near I-270, I suppose 60 mph doesn't seem far-fetched. Not that it really matters in practice, of course. People are going to go as fast as they want, especially on the southeast portion in PG County between the Wilson Bridge and Route 50 (which I find to be the most nerve-wracking stretch in terms of aggressive driving, weaving in and out at high speeds, etc.).

[sprjus4]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but as a practical matter, and recognizing we are talking about Maryland, I would be absolutely shocked to see 70-mph speed limits anywhere on the Beltway. Even 65 might be surprising (consider that Virginia, which has on the whole been more amenable to raising speed limits than Maryland has, posts 65 mph only in the HO/T lanes). Except near I-270, I suppose 60 mph doesn't seem far-fetched. Not that it really matters in practice, of course. People are going to go as fast as they want, especially on the southeast portion in PG County between the Wilson Bridge and Route 50 (which I find to be the most nerve-wracking stretch in terms of aggressive driving, weaving in and out at high speeds, etc.).

Regarding your Virginia point, it's important to note they at least post 65 mph immediately outside the Beltway on both I-95 North and US-50 East, whereas Virginia holds the limit at 55 mph for at least 8-10 miles on both I-95 and I-66 until finally increasing to 60 mph, then some more miles to 65 mph. So there is more leniency on Maryland's part given that. Then of course, there's the counterexample of I-270 which remains at 55 mph for miles outside the Beltway, similar to Virginia's practice, before going up to 65 mph (no 60 mph zone in between IIRC)

But I definitely agree, the odds of the speed limit ever increasing on the Beltway itself are low, though that segment you mention, could easily be a candidate for 65 mph, the highway almost feels like a rural bypass design-wise in areas that can easily handle those speeds. I've had no problem comfortably holding 70 - 75 mph on that segment, and while still being passed by other traffic.

[Scott5114]

Well, I was going along this line of reasoning.

White rectangular sign = Regulatory sign
Obey warning signs = State regulation
Speed advisory tab on curve = Part of warning signage
Speed advisory tab on curve = State regulation to obey

Yeah, and that's one of Texas's standard set. I always wonder what the hell they're trying to convey with that.

I didn't go buy a membership when I saw this sign, so I guess I could have gotten ticketed for that.

[kphoger]

I didn't go buy a membership when I saw this sign, so I guess I could have gotten ticketed for that.

No, your thinking is backwards.  If you're not already a member of Sam's Club, then you aren't required to turn left there.

[kphoger]

Yeah, and that's one of Texas's standard set. I always wonder what the hell they're trying to convey with that.

That's the Texas mystery signage.

The Kansas mystery signage is "No Passing" signs posted in road construction on six-lane freeways.

[PHLBOS]

https://landline.media/speed-limit-revisions-discussed-in-eight-statehouses/

Update on some state's speed limit proposals from West Virginia, North Dakota (failed again), Indiana (get rid of split speed limits failed again), Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont (which they are crazy enough to lower the speed limits on freeways to 55).

With regards to Vermont's proposal.

Data provided to lawmaker has shown that optimal fuel efficiency for vehicles is dependent on travel at 55 mph. Additionally, driving at 60 mph reduces efficiency by 3%, and driving at 65 mph cuts into efficiency by 8%.

I'd be curious to know what type & how old of a car/vehicle was used for to obtain those test results.  Vehicle transmissions have come a long way since the 1970s.  Both of my vehicles, a 2007 Mustang & a 2011 Ford Crown Victoria, get their optimum fuel economy between 68 to 72 mph. 

Was either an old vintage VW Beetle or a vintage GM car with the 2-speed Powerglide automatic transmission used to get those results?

[vdeane]

Maybe they're citing the same studies done in the 70s that resulted in the NMSL?

[StogieGuy7]

Just read the Landline article, which was a very well written summary of current speed limit proposals. The Vermont proposal is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time.  This creep is using the same stupid argument that was made in 1974 - back when speed limits were forced down from 70->50 before quickly being sneaked back up to 55. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.  Nobody will follow such a speed limit, so it's clearly a revenue generating device.  Then again, it's Vermont. 

The Maryland proposal doesn't make any sense. Maybe the description is not written well, but I suspect that the proposal itself is the issue. How is a "sudden speed change" an issue? Don't you slow down then speed up when exiting/entering any freeway? So what? Does this really require legislation? Also, the way it's written seems like it could either raise the speed limit on the beltway to 70 mph or knock it way down on several other freeways to 55.  Unclear, and unclear legislation is usually a very bad thing.

I sort of get the rationale behind ND's decision to stick at 75, but an enforced 80 mph limit does make more sense to me given that SD, WY and MT have the same. OTOH, I'm not sure how many stretches of WV interstate are good for 75 mph or more. Lots of hills, curves, etc. on interstates throughout WV. So their proposal would seem to have pretty limited effect.

[kalvado]

Data provided to lawmaker has shown that optimal fuel efficiency for vehicles is dependent on travel at 55 mph. Additionally, driving at 60 mph reduces efficiency by 3%, and driving at 65 mph cuts into efficiency by 8%.

I'd be curious to know what type & how old of a car/vehicle was used for to obtain those test results.  Vehicle transmissions have come a long way since the 1970s.  Both of my vehicles, a 2007 Mustang & a 2011 Ford Crown Victoria, get their optimum fuel economy between 68 to 72 mph. 

Was either an old vintage VW Beetle or a vintage GM car with the 2-speed Powerglide automatic transmission used to get those results?

I doubt 70 mph would be optimum. Air resistance - drag - goes up as velocity squared, and transmission shouldn't be a huge factor as long as it is not forcing engine into way-off mode.
All the data I can see points at 50 mph, give or take, as a fuel burn optimum for free flow. Do you have any other information?

[1995hoo]

The transmission does make a difference because the ideal cruising speed for fuel economy is the slowest speed that allows you to use your highest gear without lugging. My Acura TL has a six-speed manual. I get considerably better fuel economy at 65 mph in sixth gear with the engine turning lower revs than I do at 55 mph in fifth gear turning at some higher revs (55 is too slow for sixth, especially if there are any hills).

I've averaged over 30 mpg in that car in all-Interstate driving when I've averaged 73 mph for the tank of gas. I would not have averaged 30 mpg at 55 mph because the engine would have been working harder.

[kalvado]

The transmission does make a difference because the ideal cruising speed for fuel economy is the slowest speed that allows you to use your highest gear without lugging. My Acura TL has a six-speed manual. I get considerably better fuel economy at 65 mph in sixth gear with the engine turning lower revs than I do at 55 mph in fifth gear turning at some higher revs (55 is too slow for sixth, especially if there are any hills).

I've averaged over 30 mpg in that car in all-Interstate driving when I've averaged 73 mph for the tank of gas. I would not have averaged 30 mpg at 55 mph because the engine would have been working harder.

Gear switching makes a lot of difference, problem is that higher gear at high speed may still be less efficient than lower gear at low speed, in terms of MPG.
Here is the graph for some very old car - a fairly illustrative one: you can see gear switching humps on the graph, as well as that at some point MPG still goes down.

[kphoger]

The transmission does make a difference because the ideal cruising speed for fuel economy is the slowest speed that allows you to use your highest gear without lugging. My Acura TL has a six-speed manual. I get considerably better fuel economy at 65 mph in sixth gear with the engine turning lower revs than I do at 55 mph in fifth gear turning at some higher revs (55 is too slow for sixth, especially if there are any hills).

I've averaged over 30 mpg in that car in all-Interstate driving when I've averaged 73 mph for the tank of gas. I would not have averaged 30 mpg at 55 mph because the engine would have been working harder.

But isn't it fair to say that most vehicles on the road don't get better fuel economy at 70 than at 50?  Sure, yours apparently does, but what about the other eight around you that don't?

[1995hoo]

The transmission does make a difference because the ideal cruising speed for fuel economy is the slowest speed that allows you to use your highest gear without lugging. My Acura TL has a six-speed manual. I get considerably better fuel economy at 65 mph in sixth gear with the engine turning lower revs than I do at 55 mph in fifth gear turning at some higher revs (55 is too slow for sixth, especially if there are any hills).

I've averaged over 30 mpg in that car in all-Interstate driving when I've averaged 73 mph for the tank of gas. I would not have averaged 30 mpg at 55 mph because the engine would have been working harder.

But isn't it fair to say that most vehicles on the road don't get better fuel economy at 70 than at 50?  Sure, yours apparently does, but what about the other eight around you that don't?

My point was not that mine does but rather that the transmission makes a difference.

[kalvado]

The transmission does make a difference because the ideal cruising speed for fuel economy is the slowest speed that allows you to use your highest gear without lugging. My Acura TL has a six-speed manual. I get considerably better fuel economy at 65 mph in sixth gear with the engine turning lower revs than I do at 55 mph in fifth gear turning at some higher revs (55 is too slow for sixth, especially if there are any hills).

I've averaged over 30 mpg in that car in all-Interstate driving when I've averaged 73 mph for the tank of gas. I would not have averaged 30 mpg at 55 mph because the engine would have been working harder.

But isn't it fair to say that most vehicles on the road don't get better fuel economy at 70 than at 50?  Sure, yours apparently does, but what about the other eight around you that don't?

My point was not that mine does but rather that the transmission makes a difference.

an I cannot find any specific data for your cars. If what you're saying is correct, you get optimum at 70 because of poor transmission design, which misses some common highway speed limits.
Issue is further mitigated by CVTs becoming the new normal (and it seems that CVT works worse in city cycle - is that true?)

[deathtopumpkins]

I'm more interested in the NH bill that, if I'm reading it correctly, allows 60 mph on 2-lane roads. That's much more of a game-changer to me than the limit increasing another 5 mph on interstates!

Unless I'm mistaken currently the only states east of the Mississippi that allow higher than 55 on 2-lane roads are Florida (60) and Michigan (65).

[cl94]

I'm more interested in the NH bill that, if I'm reading it correctly, allows 60 mph on 2-lane roads. That's much more of a game-changer to me than the limit increasing another 5 mph on interstates!

Unless I'm mistaken currently the only states east of the Mississippi that allow higher than 55 on 2-lane roads are Florida (60) and Michigan (65).

Correct. Ohio law allows it, but ODOT has yet to post it anywhere. Everywhere else limits 2-lanes to 50-55, unless you want to include Minnesota (60) in "east of the Mississippi" because part of the state technically is.

It'll be interesting to see if NH actually goes to 60. 55 is relatively rare in the state, so I'm curious how many of those would get bumped up. 9 between Keene and 89 and the super-2 portions of the Spaulding Turnpike, 3, and 101 are the only candidates that really stand out.

[PHLBOS]

Maybe they're citing the same studies done in the 70s that resulted in the NMSL?

If that is indeed the case; then the proposal should be dismissed on the grounds the data in question is well over 45 years old.

Data provided to lawmaker has shown that optimal fuel efficiency for vehicles is dependent on travel at 55 mph. Additionally, driving at 60 mph reduces efficiency by 3%, and driving at 65 mph cuts into efficiency by 8%.

I'd be curious to know what type & how old of a car/vehicle was used for to obtain those test results.  Vehicle transmissions have come a long way since the 1970s.  Both of my vehicles, a 2007 Mustang & a 2011 Ford Crown Victoria, get their optimum fuel economy between 68 to 72 mph. 

Was either an old vintage VW Beetle or a vintage GM car with the 2-speed Powerglide automatic transmission used to get those results?

I doubt 70 mph would be optimum. Air resistance - drag - goes up as velocity squared, and transmission shouldn't be a huge factor as long as it is not forcing engine into way-off mode.
All the data I can see points at 50 mph, give or take, as a fuel burn optimum for free flow. Do you have any other information?

2-word answer with regards transmissions: overdrive gear(s).   

Overdrive transmissions were briefly offered in the 1950s but were short-lived until the mid-to-late 70s when measures to push for higher fuel economy became a higher priority.   The additional overdrive gear(s) settings allowed the engines to rev at lower RPMs at higher speeds.  Lower RPMs yielded in less fuel being consumed vs. using the non-overdrive gears.

The overdrive revival was initially offered on manual transmissioned vehicles during the mid-to-late 70s.  The first automatic overdrive transmissions were offered as an option on the full-size Ford, Lincoln & Mercury vehicles as well as the mid-size Thunderbird & Cougar XR-7 coupes.  By 1990, all domestic full-size vehicles with V8 engines were equipped with automatic overdrive transmissions.  Around the same time, such was also widely available among other vehicle types as well.

In more recent years, transmissions offered on vehicles today range from 6 to 8 speeds; a far cry from the days where the 3-speed automatics & the 4-speed manuals were the order of the day among new vehicles.  The added gears coincidentally started being offered when pushes for increased fuel efficiency were revived over a decade ago.

With regards to air resistance/drag: vehicles, by & large, have become more aerodynamic than their 40-year old predecessors.  Such, coupled with the above-advances in transmissions, help either maintain optimum fuel efficiency at higher (but not highest) speeds or at least reduce the penalty.

I've owned both my vehicles for many years and my stated observations are based on several trips between Greater Philadelphia and Massachusetts where the driving was 95 to 98% highway w/no traffic-related slowdowns.  My 2011 Crown Vic has a 4-speed automatic (4th gear being the overdrive gear) & my 2007 Mustang has a 5-speed automatic (5th gear being the overdrive gear).  I averaged 27 to 28 mpg for both vehicles during said-trips. 

Other real-world examples: On 2 other occasions, my brother rented Crown Vics (a '94 & 2002) & experienced similar; getting the better fuel economy between 65 to 75.

Back in the mid-80s, he owned a 1986 Escort w/a 5-speed manual (5th gear being the overdrive); he couldn't realistically shift into that gear unless he was going over 55 mph.  When in that gear, he was able to obtain 42 mpg & he was driving higher than 55.

[kalvado]

Maybe they're citing the same studies done in the 70s that resulted in the NMSL?

If that is indeed the case; then the proposal should be dismissed on the grounds the data in question is well over 45 years old.

Data provided to lawmaker has shown that optimal fuel efficiency for vehicles is dependent on travel at 55 mph. Additionally, driving at 60 mph reduces efficiency by 3%, and driving at 65 mph cuts into efficiency by 8%.

I'd be curious to know what type & how old of a car/vehicle was used for to obtain those test results.  Vehicle transmissions have come a long way since the 1970s.  Both of my vehicles, a 2007 Mustang & a 2011 Ford Crown Victoria, get their optimum fuel economy between 68 to 72 mph. 

Was either an old vintage VW Beetle or a vintage GM car with the 2-speed Powerglide automatic transmission used to get those results?

I doubt 70 mph would be optimum. Air resistance - drag - goes up as velocity squared, and transmission shouldn't be a huge factor as long as it is not forcing engine into way-off mode.
All the data I can see points at 50 mph, give or take, as a fuel burn optimum for free flow. Do you have any other information?

2-word answer with regards transmissions: overdrive gear(s).   

Overdrive transmissions were briefly offered in the 1950s but were short-lived until the mid-to-late 70s when measures to push for higher fuel economy became a higher priority.   The additional overdrive gear(s) settings allowed the engines to rev at lower RPMs at higher speeds.  Lower RPMs yielded in less fuel being consumed vs. using the non-overdrive gears.

The overdrive revival was initially offered on manual transmissioned vehicles during the mid-to-late 70s.  The first automatic overdrive transmissions were offered as an option on the full-size Ford, Lincoln & Mercury vehicles as well as the mid-size Thunderbird & Cougar XR-7 coupes.  By 1990, all domestic full-size vehicles with V8 engines were equipped with automatic overdrive transmissions.  Around the same time, such was also widely available among other vehicle types as well.

In more recent years, transmissions offered on vehicles today range from 6 to 8 speeds; a far cry from the days where the 3-speed automatics & the 4-speed manuals were the order of the day among new vehicles.  The added gears coincidentally started being offered when pushes for increased fuel efficiency were revived over a decade ago.

With regards to air resistance/drag: vehicles, by & large, have become more aerodynamic than their 40-year old predecessors.  Such, coupled with the above-advances in transmissions, help either maintain optimum fuel efficiency at higher (but not highest) speeds or at least reduce the penalty.

I've owned both my vehicles for many years and my stated observations are based on several trips between Greater Philadelphia and Massachusetts where the driving was 95 to 98% highway w/no traffic-related slowdowns.  My 2011 Crown Vic has a 4-speed automatic (4th gear being the overdrive gear) & my 2007 Mustang has a 5-speed automatic (5th gear being the overdrive gear).  I averaged 27 to 28 mpg for both vehicles during said-trips. 

Other real-world examples: On 2 other occasions, my brother rented Crown Vics (a '94 & 2002) & experienced similar; getting the better fuel economy between 65 to 75.

Back in the mid-80s, he owned a 1986 Escort w/a 5-speed manual (5th gear being the overdrive); he couldn't realistically shift into that gear unless he was going over 55 mph.  When in that gear, he was able to obtain 42 mpg & he was driving higher than 55.

Two word answer: conservation of energy .

[deathtopumpkins]

At the risk of straying too deeply into NH-specific territory...

It'll be interesting to see if NH actually goes to 60. 55 is relatively rare in the state, so I'm curious how many of those would get bumped up. 9 between Keene and 89 and the super-2 portions of the Spaulding Turnpike, 3, and 101 are the only candidates that really stand out.

I think most of the state's high-quality 2-laners could handle a bump to 60. NH has hundreds of miles of rural 2-lane roads with full shoulders, excellent sightlines, and limited driveway access, where traffic currently often flows at 60+.

Based on those criteria, I'd at least consider:
US 2 in Randolph
US 3 on the Laconia Bypass, and higher-quality between-town stretches north of the notch, e.g. from 93 Exit 35 to Twin Mountain
US 4 on the Durham Bypass
NH 4 in Rollinsford
NH 9 from Vermont to Hopkinton, except through towns
NH 10 from Keene to Gilsum, maybe Newport to Grantham, and maybe stretch(es) north of Hanover
NH 11 from North Charlestown toward Claremont, from New London to Andover, and some stretches between Laconia and Rochester
NH 12 on most of its run, except through towns
NH 16 from Rochester to Ossipee, and through Pinkham Notch. Maybe a few other segments.
NH 25 on scattered stretches between east Haverhill to I-93 in Plymouth and Moultonborough to Ossipee, and from Osspiee to Maine
NH 28 between Suncook and Allenstown, around Pittsfield, and betwen Alton and Wolfeboro
NH 101 on some stretches from Marlborough Wilton, plus the Milford Bypass and continuing a bit toward Bedford. Maybe between I-95 and US 1.
NH 102 between Hudson and Londonderry
NH 103 from Bradford west (in parts)
NH 104 in its entirety, except through towns
NH 106 from Concord to Laconia
NH 110 on certain stretches west of Berlin
NH 111 from Hudson to Windham, on the recently realigned stretch through north Salem, and from east Hampstead to Kingston
NH 114 maybe on the Bedford bypass if a few improvements are made, and some stretches between Goffstown and Bradford
NH 115 in its entirety
NH 116 between Littleton and Whitefield
NH 119 between Rindge and Massachusetts
NH 125 on the Kingston bypass, and various stretches between Kingston and Rochester
US 202 on various stretches from Massachusetts to Hillsboro
US 302 maybe on a few stretches west of Littleton, but it's pretty curvy along the Ammonoosuc River. East of there I'm sure some stretches around Crawford Notch could handle 60 no problem.

Most of these stretches are 55 right now, with some 50s thrown in. I imagine some of them would always remain 50 or 55 due to traffic volumes, curvature, etc., but I think this is a decent list of where 60 might be a feasible possibility.

[TXtoNJ]

https://landline.media/speed-limit-revisions-discussed-in-eight-statehouses/

Update on some state's speed limit proposals from West Virginia, North Dakota (failed again), Indiana (get rid of split speed limits failed again), Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont (which they are crazy enough to lower the speed limits on freeways to 55).

A 75 mph NJ Turnpike (easily the 85th percentile speed) would sure be something to see.