Found this this morning. Are things finally beginning to move in this direction? Link: http://www.krem.com/news/local/spokane-county/wsdot-looking-to-increase-speed-limits-statewide/57932864
Going 80 mph is a scummy move.
We need more variable limits, since people will insist on driving at the limit or over during bad weather. 75 mph is fine on a nice summer day on a straight section of I-90, but is not appropriate on a curvy section of I-5 in the rain.
Quote from: Bruce on February 27, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
Going 80 mph is a scummy move.
Why? 80 mph is perfectly acceptable, and is even the limit in some areas like Utah, Montana, France, etc.
Quote from: Bruce on February 27, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
Going 80 mph is a scummy move.
We need more variable limits, since people will insist on driving at the limit or over during bad weather. 75 mph is fine on a nice summer day on a straight section of I-90, but is not appropriate on a curvy section of I-5 in the rain.
Ok. What's a variable limit going to do? People will insist on driving over them on bad weather.
Enforce hard and without much leeway. That's the only way to stamp out this kind of bad behavior.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2016, 11:09:21 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 27, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
Going 80 mph is a scummy move.
We need more variable limits, since people will insist on driving at the limit or over during bad weather. 75 mph is fine on a nice summer day on a straight section of I-90, but is not appropriate on a curvy section of I-5 in the rain.
Ok. What's a variable limit going to do? People will insist on driving over them on bad weather.
Not only that, but different people handle inclement weather at different skill levels. Why would you punish those of us who are skilled at it?
I agree with Brandon. A safe speed for Michael Schumacher in a well-maintained Ferrari is not the same the safe speed for my father in beat-up Honda Civic. The difference is probably three-to-one or four-to-one. Accordingly, I am firmly opposed to all procrustean speed limits. There should be a severe penalty for driving at an unsafe speed, but what is unsafe is extremely variable depending on so many factors that it cannot possibly be determined in advance by bureaucrats who know nothing about the driver, nothing about the vehicle, and nothing about the road conditions.
Quote from: mcarling on February 28, 2016, 01:50:00 PM
I agree with Brandon. A safe speed for Michael Schumacher in a well-maintained Ferrari is not the same the safe speed for my father in beat-up Honda Civic. The difference is probably three-to-one or four-to-one. Accordingly, I am firmly opposed to all procrustean speed limits. There should be a severe penalty for driving at an unsafe speed, but what is unsafe is extremely variable depending on so many factors that it cannot possibly be determined in advance by bureaucrats who know nothing about the driver, nothing about the vehicle, and nothing about the road conditions.
So how would you enforce speed laws if they're completely dependent on the vehicle and driver? No speed tickets unless speed was a factor in an accident?
Quote from: Bruce on February 28, 2016, 02:20:22 AM
Enforce hard and without much leeway. That's the only way to stamp out this kind of bad behavior.
75-80 is not bad behavior, even in the rain. I've driven home from Seattle to Tacoma numerous times in the rain at 70-75 mph, without any issue.
As for variable limits, a better idea might be to introduce variable
advisory limits, rather than actual limits. Many times, VSL's are used to slow traffic down before a hazard comes into view. Ticketing someone for, effectively, not slowing down fast enough is laughable, if not downright insulting.
Variable speed limits could be useful on I-5 through the Skagit Valley farmland. Most of the time, in good weather, 70 is perfectly safe. But during tulip blooming season there are often severe traffic backups onto the freeway, from so many visitors overloading the off ramps to look and pick out bulb varieties for their gardens, and it would be much better to approach them at about 50. There are several rear enders there every year, during the four week or so season.
It doesn't matter what the speed is, you will still encounter the following:
- Moron with old car, not realizing it can't maintain speed (usually in the left or passing lane).
- Asshole, who thinks they know better and purposely drive below the speed limit, all the time.
- Idiot, that doesn't know that a "Speed Limit", is a limit, not a requirement, regardless of weather.
75 or 80 are nice, comfortable speed limits. Variable speed limits only seem to work in the city, because it help alleviate the sudden breaking when reaching a jam. The Variable limits over the passes are rarely followed, and almost as rarely enforced (like those 15 years the software on the signs wouldn't allow them to set it higher than 65).
Remember, these limits need to be set using the 85/15 rule, and not set because an individual doesn't like the speed, or their vehicle is poor (they would fall into the 15).
Of course, if the states had something like UK's MOT, and your vehicle had to maintain reasonable standards for safety and operation, we could go full Autobahn, but 80 would be decent, and much better for fuel economy than the paltry 70 that WSDOT has saddled us with. Sure there are places where a lower limit is reasonable, which would come out doing ant 85/15 study, and those would be marked appropriately (like the dumb drop to the river near George). And while they are at it, get rid of the lower truck limit. It does nothing but clog the road.
Speed limits are generally poorly set and enforced, so one must re-engineer a road (via road diets) to force drivers to slow down and not plow through buildings as seen on Rainier Avenue in the Rainier Valley.
FWIW, the reduced speed limit on I-5 here in Marysville (went down from 70 to 60 a decade or so ago) has caused a good number of accidents to decrease, and that was before the concrete median barrier was installed.
Quote from: kkt on February 28, 2016, 02:02:52 PMSo how would you enforce speed laws if they're completely dependent on the vehicle and driver? No speed tickets unless speed was a factor in an accident?
Same as reckless driving laws are enforced now, depending on the situation.
Quote from: Bruce on February 28, 2016, 05:12:10 PMFWIW, the reduced speed limit on I-5 here in Marysville (went down from 70 to 60 a decade or so ago) has caused a good number of accidents to decrease, and that was before the concrete median barrier was installed.
If that argument is valid, then speed limits should be set to, say, 4mph at intersections and 8mph between intersections (used to be the speed limits in San Francisco) and then the number of collisions would be even lower than at 60mph.
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
I think you, and a lot of other people, have been engineered to think that 80 is "pushing it", but I don't necessarily think it is. Divided highways with long curves and straightaways pose almost no risk to drivers at speeds above even 100 mph. The design speed of many roadways is 70-80 mph, but that doesn't take into account the stretches where design speed was not relevant, because the surrounding geography posed no challenge, and the road was simply curved to keep drivers awake.
Here's a stretch of I-90 where 70 is far too conservative: https://goo.gl/8xPtWC; This is a stretch of 23 miles without a single kink in the roadway. At the very least, the limit should be 80, with advisory speeds for certain corners. There's many other long stretches like this where keeping to even 75 may be difficult (and where the 85th percentile is likely well above that).
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
I think you, and a lot of other people, have been engineered to think that 80 is "pushing it", but I don't necessarily think it is. Divided highways with long curves and straightaways pose almost no risk to drivers at speeds above even 100 mph. The design speed of many roadways is 70-80 mph, but that doesn't take into account the stretches where design speed was not relevant, because the surrounding geography posed no challenge, and the road was simply curved to keep drivers awake.
Here's a stretch of I-90 where 70 is far too conservative: https://goo.gl/8xPtWC; This is a stretch of 23 miles without a single kink in the roadway. At the very least, the limit should be 80, with advisory speeds for certain corners. There's many other long stretches like this where keeping to even 75 may be difficult (and where the 85th percentile is likely well above that).
It's certainly straight enough. I'd wonder about ranch roads and whether animals tend to wander onto the roadway and how often there's congestion. I wouldn't post anywhere in the U.S. over 80 mph, unless there was lots better driver training.
Quote from: kkt on February 29, 2016, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
I think you, and a lot of other people, have been engineered to think that 80 is "pushing it", but I don't necessarily think it is. Divided highways with long curves and straightaways pose almost no risk to drivers at speeds above even 100 mph. The design speed of many roadways is 70-80 mph, but that doesn't take into account the stretches where design speed was not relevant, because the surrounding geography posed no challenge, and the road was simply curved to keep drivers awake.
Here's a stretch of I-90 where 70 is far too conservative: https://goo.gl/8xPtWC; This is a stretch of 23 miles without a single kink in the roadway. At the very least, the limit should be 80, with advisory speeds for certain corners. There's many other long stretches like this where keeping to even 75 may be difficult (and where the 85th percentile is likely well above that).
It's certainly straight enough. I'd wonder about ranch roads and whether animals tend to wander onto the roadway and how often there's congestion. I wouldn't post anywhere in the U.S. over 80 mph, unless there was lots better driver training.
You're right. Driver training is the key. Because I can imagine a perfect rural interstate with wide breakdown medians, low traffic numbers, exits at least 5 miles apart, perfect daytime weather, and along completely flat terrain. Technically, it should be safe to travel at any reasonable speed - even 100 mph. But becuase of our poor driving skills, along the lines of following too closely, poorly maintaining vehicles, distracted driving, etc. - even this ideal road should be limited to something along the lines of 75-80 mph.
Just to clarify, the current law will only allow increases to 75 m.p.h., not 80 m.p.h. (Though in response to the person above who said they would be opposed to ANY speed limit in the U.S. above 80 m.p.h., a 41 mile long segment of the Texas 130 toll freeway between the San Antonio and Austin metro areas has had an 85 m.p.h. speed limit since it opened in 2013 and I have not heard of there being any issues caused by it there.)
I personally am in favor of Washington increasing speed limits as follows: 75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 83 to mile post 99 and mile post 207 to mile post 221, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270. The speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195. I would also not be opposed to raising some other suburban freeways to 65 m.p.h. such as I-5 north of Vancouver, I-90 on the east sides of the Seattle and Spokane metro areas, I-405, S.R. 3, S.R. 16, S.R. 18, S.R. 167 and S.R. 512
Quote from: Bruce on February 28, 2016, 02:20:22 AM
Enforce hard and without much leeway. That's the only way to stamp out this kind of bad behavior.
This is exactly the type of starry-eyed idealism and lack of practicality I expect from someone in the Pacific Northwest :-D There's a reason Portlandia is a funny show.
Before I say anything else, know that we aren't trying to stomp out "bad behavior." We're trying to eliminate crashes, deaths, and injuries.
We can't put law enforcement everywhere. We would need like half the population to be police to keep speeds down. In Chicago, even traffic cameras are being judged as unethical and invasive.
In reality, speed limits are established based on the prevailing speeds people choose to travel, not the other way around. Most people travel at the speed they feel is reasonable, and regulations are made to keep people moving at a speed matching the traffic, so as not to create slow-moving obstacles most people have to dodge around.
And while in the rain, people slow down to speeds below the limit to keep safe. If you lived in a place other than the west coast (i.e. anywhere with ice or snow), that would be strikingly clear to you. (People on the west coast, especially CA don't know to adjust their driving based on the weather conditions because they never see rain.) Grant people some agency. There are a few bad eggs out there, but don't make the whole citizenry suffer because of their rare form of recklessness.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 01, 2016, 11:14:09 AM
(People on the west coast, especially CA don't know to adjust their driving based on the weather conditions because they never see rain.)
Seattle and Portland are two of the rainiest places (https://goo.gl/7W4kBe) in the US. I assure you, we can't drive in ice or snow (but then again, we have hills everywhere, so what do you expect?) But we can drive in the rain, much better than anyone from southern California.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2016, 02:03:16 PM
But we can drive in the rain, much better than anyone from southern California.
That's a pretty low bar...
Really, drivers in the rain here are amazingly bad, given how much practice we get. Sure, we can take corners at 10 over the posted speed limit even when there's a puddle across the whole road. Hydroplaning? What's that?
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2016, 02:03:16 PM
But we can drive in the rain, much better than anyone from southern California.
That's a pretty low bar...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3lFHq.gif&hash=f0cd8b4d5ed15f559c0d35239c6247d8d9c25eb8)
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 02:06:58 PM
Really, drivers in the rain here are amazingly bad, given how much practice we get. Sure, we can take corners at 10 over the posted speed limit even when there's a puddle across the whole road. Hydroplaning? What's that?
Do we live in the same city? I've never gotten the impression that we can't drive in the rain.
In the Midwest, you can get some really debilitating downpours that cause most or all of the drivers on the Interstate to pull over and wait it out. I'm not sure you get those kinds of downpours in OR/WA? My understanding of Pacific NW weather is that it's overcast or rainy a lot, but it's mainly light showers with the rare occasion of a downpour.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 01, 2016, 02:13:20 PM
In the Midwest, you can get some really debilitating downpours that cause most or all of the drivers on the Interstate to pull over and wait it out. I'm not sure you get those kinds of downpours in OR/WA? My understanding of Pacific NW weather is that it's overcast or rainy a lot, but it's mainly light showers with the rare occasion of a downpour.
Western Washington and Western Oregon do experience heavy squalls like that several times a year, but rarely are they so heavy that drivers need to pull over. The persistent drizzle between October and April is the most identifiable part of our climate (the rest of the year is much drier, for the most part).
On the other hand, Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon have an entirely different climate (more akin to the rest of the west: four identifiable seasons). Not sure they have any more rain squalls than we do, but certainly a lot less rainy days overall.
I wonder if we are from the same city. In the one I live in, the persistent drizzle extends to mid-July. Often there's a dry week or so in late May, but then it's back to drizzle.
The downpours here are rare, much rarer than the midwest or east.
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
I wonder if we are from the same city. In the one I live in, the persistent drizzle extends to mid-July. Often there's a dry week or so in late May, but then it's back to drizzle.
Scott Sistek (out of KOMO) wrote a blog about this (http://goo.gl/bT7Qyo) a couple years ago. Here's a monthly breakdown of "hours a day/days a week":
Quote
January & February: 7/4
March: 6/4
April: 5/3
May: 4/3
June: 4/2
July & August: 4/1
September: 4/2
October: 5/3
November & December: 7/4
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
The downpours here are rare, much rarer than the midwest or east.
Well of course, we don't get those huge thunderstorms rolling through every five days. But we do have heavy rain with hail once every month or two. Hell, there was a thunderstorm with heavy wind and hail just this last Sunday here in Tacoma. The storm drains were backing up.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2016, 05:15:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
I wonder if we are from the same city. In the one I live in, the persistent drizzle extends to mid-July. Often there's a dry week or so in late May, but then it's back to drizzle.
Scott Sistek (out of KOMO) wrote a blog about this (http://goo.gl/bT7Qyo) a couple years ago. Here's a monthly breakdown of "hours a day/days a week":
Quote
January & February: 7/4
March: 6/4
April: 5/3
May: 4/3
June: 4/2
July & August: 4/1
September: 4/2
October: 5/3
November & December: 7/4
Cliff Mass has written about this too:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/02/seattle-and-western-washington-has.html
QuoteI like to tell folks that typically spring begins in western Washington the third week in February (let's say Feb. 25th) and ends in mid-July (local meteorologists like to use July 13th). Look outside now: flowers are blooming everywhere, weeds are growing, and the grass is getting longer. After Feb 25th, the chances of major flooding, low-level snow, and strong windstorms plummet. And we all know that June is often cloudy and cool and we don't make the real transition to reliable summer weather until mid-July. A spring of 4.5 months.
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2016, 06:26:36 PM
Cliff Mass has written about this too:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/02/seattle-and-western-washington-has.html
QuoteI like to tell folks that typically spring begins in western Washington the third week in February (let's say Feb. 25th) and ends in mid-July (local meteorologists like to use July 13th). Look outside now: flowers are blooming everywhere, weeds are growing, and the grass is getting longer. After Feb 25th, the chances of major flooding, low-level snow, and strong windstorms plummet. And we all know that June is often cloudy and cool and we don't make the real transition to reliable summer weather until mid-July. A spring of 4.5 months.
My point is simply that the rain starts to die down after April.
I prefer to sum up our weather here in the Pacific Northwest like this: July 5th to the Thursday before Labor Day, hot and sunny with an occasional thunderstorm, Labor Day weekend through July 4th, damp, dark, dreary and generally depressing! :pan:
Actually some years the weather can stay surprisingly nice deep into October or even November some years, a phenomenon we generally refer to as "Indian Summer". Otherwise, the rainy season can start as early as September and drag all the way through June with the odd few days here and there of nice, sunny weather OR the occasional ice storm or inch or so of snow. (Warning:West Coast drivers are notoriously frightening drivers in even the slightest bit of snow!)
Of course east of the mountains is a whole different story as it is mostly desert over there.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on March 01, 2016, 09:52:04 AMThe speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154...
Why are you keeping it 60 through JBLM, but raising it through Downtown Tacoma??? I'm of the apparently controversial opinion that speed limits are fine as they are (though I don't get to Eastern Washington that often), but if I had written that post, I probably would have said from 112-127 and 135-154 instead.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 02, 2016, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on March 01, 2016, 09:52:04 AMThe speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154...
Why are you keeping it 60 through JBLM, but raising it through Downtown Tacoma??? I'm of the apparently controversial opinion that speed limits are fine as they are (though I don't get to Eastern Washington that often), but if I had written that post, I probably would have said from 112-127 and 135-154 instead.
I see no reason to change
where the current limits go up. Add 5 to all current limits, and call it good. 65 in urban areas. 75 in rural areas.
I support an increase in urban areas, because I support an increase in rural areas. I don't like differentials of more than 10 miles/hour, so the limit should be bumped to 65 to keep within that threshold.
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds. But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds. But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.
Citation & source?
Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds. But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.
Citation & source?
Widely known. By googling "freeway capacity by speed" the first page of hits included
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html
which has a nice chart of speed range vs. lane capacity.
That page in turn cites Homburger, Kell and Perkins, 1992, which I am not finding online.
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds. But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.
Citation & source?
Widely known. By googling "freeway capacity by speed" the first page of hits included
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html
which has a nice chart of speed range vs. lane capacity.
That page in turn cites Homburger, Kell and Perkins, 1992, which I am not finding online.
Do people actually leave more room at 80 than at 60 or 55? I know they should, but I'm not sure they do. That study seems to be based on math instead of real-world observations, which I suspect would instead show a minimal change in following distance at 80 vs a lower freeway limit.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
Everyone below me (or above me depending on your view) is wrong. Or right, but misstating it. Plain and simple: 70 MPH
free-flow speed is the highest theoretical capacity. Higher than that, doesn't matter. Speed limit doesn't matter. If the speed limit is 65 and everyone is going 70 or more in free-flow conditions, the road is optimal. If you sign it at 70 or 75, even better. When the free-flow speed is 70, the actual speed at capacity is closer to 55 MPH or even lower. But if your free-flow speed is 55, you won't be close to even 45 at capacity and therefore your capacity will be lower. Questions?
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2016, 12:25:22 AM
I was thinking the limit ought to be 55 between the Brewery and Northgate. Way more hours lost each year due to traffic jams from accidents than would be gained by raising the speed limit.
What if, say, everyone was legally allowed to travel at 80 miles/hour? Would there be an increase in capacity?
No, the highest capacity is when traffic is moving at about 40 mph, because there's less space between cars at lower speeds. But capacity also goes down when the road is so full it reaches stop-and-go conditions.
Citation & source?
Widely known. By googling "freeway capacity by speed" the first page of hits included
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/methods/highwaysfd.html
which has a nice chart of speed range vs. lane capacity.
That page in turn cites Homburger, Kell and Perkins, 1992, which I am not finding online.
No, that is the wrong source. Use this:
http://www.hcmguide.com/Case4/pop-upterms/ex_23-3.jpg
When your free-flow speed is 70-75 mph, your capacity is 2400 cars/hour/lane. Your actual speed is 50-55 mph at capacity, but if your free-flow speed is only 55 mph, you hit capacity sooner and at lower speed.
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
I've driven the portions of Idaho and Wyoming that allow 80 MPH. The thing I've discovered is that unlike 70 or 75, I suddenly feel no need to go any faster than 80 MPH. For rural, relatively straight freeways, 80 MPH is just fine and I would never ever come close to getting a ticket again.
Quote from: kwellada on March 04, 2016, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
I've driven the portions of Idaho and Wyoming that allow 80 MPH. The thing I've discovered is that unlike 70 or 75, I suddenly feel no need to go any faster than 80 MPH. For rural, relatively straight freeways, 80 MPH is just fine and I would never ever come close to getting a ticket again.
This. Speed limit 80 and enforced as such is a much fairer setup than speed limit 70 but you won't get stopped for less than 10 over unless the cop is having a bad day. The point of raising speed limits is not to allow people to drive faster, it's to make the speed people are already driving legal so they can do so without fear of being stopped for revenue enhancement purposes.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 06, 2016, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: kwellada on March 04, 2016, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 29, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.
I've driven the portions of Idaho and Wyoming that allow 80 MPH. The thing I've discovered is that unlike 70 or 75, I suddenly feel no need to go any faster than 80 MPH. For rural, relatively straight freeways, 80 MPH is just fine and I would never ever come close to getting a ticket again.
This. Speed limit 80 and enforced as such is a much fairer setup than speed limit 70 but you won't get stopped for less than 10 over unless the cop is having a bad day. The point of raising speed limits is not to allow people to drive faster, it's to make the speed people are already driving legal so they can do so without fear of being stopped for revenue enhancement purposes.
Not only that, but it is also to reduce the speed differential between drivers obeying the law, and those speeding; as well as making people more acutely aware of the likely speed of drivers. There are some places where the speed limits have been artificially reduced, and drivers ignore the speed limit, which may be the source of accidents due to "goodie-goodies" only running at the limit or people being unaware of the actual speed. I live on a road that used to be 35, currently 25, but drivers are often at 50+. I'm trying to get the limit raised to 35, simply because the higher speed may not be accurate to what drivers are actually driving, but would make other road users aware that the vehicles are already going much faster than expected.
Speed limits should be based on scientific criteria like lane width, number of lanes, distance between intersections, number of driveways, and other road factors (stop signs, signals, curves, etc.) If this is not possible, then the speed limit should be based on 85th percentile speed
Speed limits should not be based on politics.
One very vivid example of what not to do is the following: Burton Way serves as the border between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles between Robertson and Doheny. It is a very wide divided street. Eastbound in Beverly Hills is limited to 25 mph. Westbound in Los Angeles is 35 mph. There is no reason why the street should have different speed limits along this stretch other than BH wanting to impose a lower limit. 35 is fine for both directions.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 02, 2016, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on March 01, 2016, 09:52:04 AMThe speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154...
Why are you keeping it 60 through JBLM, but raising it through Downtown Tacoma??? I'm of the apparently controversial opinion that speed limits are fine as they are (though I don't get to Eastern Washington that often), but if I had written that post, I probably would have said from 112-127 and 135-154 instead.
Sorry for the error. That was supposed to say "138 to 154" NOT "128". I was referring to the segment between Fife and South Center.
W.S.D.O.T. is now taking comments on the proposed implementation of a 75 m.p.h. speed limit on I-90 in eastern Washington. Here is the link to the wsdot web site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/
I have already sent the following comment to the e-mail address noted at the bottom: dornfem@wsdot.wa.gov
"Greetings: I am writing to comment on proposed increases to highway speed limits in Washington State. As a frequent user of Washington highways I strongly urge that the following reasonable speed limit increases be implemented.
75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 89 to mile post 101 and mile post 206 to mile post 226, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270.
65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 138 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195.
Other outer suburban freeways such as S.R. 3, S.R. 16, I-90 on the east sides of the Seattle and Spokane metro areas, S.R. 167 and S.R. 512 should also be considered for increases to 65 m.p.h.
Also, "split" speed limits for trucks should be eliminated except on mountainous or curvy multi-lane highways where autos can safely navigate at higher speeds and have ample room for overtaking. They should especially be eliminated on 2 lane highways where they make driving considerably more dangerous.
Please also know that so-called "science" that purports to suggest that higher speed limits either use more fuel or increase so-called "greenhouse gasses" have been debunked as the junk science that they are.
As a final note, 2 days ago the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a "study" that purported to show that speed limit increases "may" be responsible for additional highway fatalities. Let me be very clear that not only is this study flawed and intentionally misleading but it's author has a history of falsifying "reports" of this nature in the past. The IIHS is an arm of the insurance lobby and as such has a vested interest in keeping speed limits as low as possible so that rates can be raised on drivers who receive tickets for driving at perfectly safe and reasonable speeds.
Thank you for taking the time to review these comments.
Sincerely, D. Richard Jones, Clackamas, Oregon"
I urge everyone else on here to submit your comments and, if possible, attend the meetings noted on the wsdot web site. They are a bit far away for me but perhaps there are others on here who live closer to Ritzville or Moses Lake.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 01:53:10 PM
75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 89 to mile post 101 and mile post 206 to mile post 226, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130.
65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 138 to mile post 154
Boy, that looks like a ton of speed limit changes for a single freeway. Not knowing what the current limits on I-5 are here are the individual zones...
MP 0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)
Having speed limits change that much that frequently is a big issue IMO, especially the 75 MPH zones that are less than 20 miles in length.
With that said, I have no idea what the current limits are on the segments that I labeled <current limit>. If someone from that area can provide me with that info, I'll gladly modify my speed zone table.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 01:53:10 PM
75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 89 to mile post 101 and mile post 206 to mile post 226, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130.
65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 138 to mile post 154
Boy, that looks like a ton of speed limit changes for a single freeway. Not knowing what the current limits on I-5 are here are the individual zones...
MP 0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)
Having speed limits change that much that frequently is a big issue IMO, especially the 75 MPH zones that are less than 20 miles in length.
With that said, I have no idea what the current limits are on the segments that I labeled <current limit>. If someone from that area can provide me with that info, I'll gladly modify my speed zone table.
The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-9 (60), MP 9-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).
Actually my only proposed changes to I-5 are to 75 m.p.h. in the rural 6 lane zones (I moved the first transition point out from MP 7 to MP 12 to get the freeway past SR 502) and to 65 in 2 extensive "outer suburban" sections, Lacy to Fort Lewis and Fife to South Center.
And I just noticed an error in my proposal. MP 89 should read MP 83 which is where I-5 currently resumes 6 lanes just north of Centralia. That segment would be 18 miles, not 12.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
MP 0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)
The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-7 (60), MP 7-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).
Wow, I didn't realize how often the speed limit changes on I-5 through Washington. With that said, I do find one issue with your proposal and that's having the speed limit drop from 75 to 60. A 15 MPH decrease in the speed limit is quite drastic IMO and is something that's not allowed, AFAIK, in California.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 15, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
MP 0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)
The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-7 (60), MP 7-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).
Wow, I didn't realize how often the speed limit changes on I-5 through Washington. With that said, I do find one issue with your proposal and that's having the speed limit drop from 75 to 60. A 15 MPH decrease in the speed limit is quite drastic IMO and is something that's not allowed, AFAIK, in California.
A few states allow it. New York has at least one place on an Interstate highway where the limit drops from 55 to 40. I do agree that 75 to 60 is a drop that should be avoided just because of the perception and the types of conditions where both limits typically apply. When Ohio raised their speed limits, for example, they kept 65 zones in places such that the limit never dropped from 70 to anything other than 65.
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 15, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
MP 0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)
The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-7 (60), MP 7-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).
Wow, I didn't realize how often the speed limit changes on I-5 through Washington. With that said, I do find one issue with your proposal and that's having the speed limit drop from 75 to 60. A 15 MPH decrease in the speed limit is quite drastic IMO and is something that's not allowed, AFAIK, in California.
A few states allow it. New York has at least one place on an Interstate highway where the limit drops from 55 to 40. I do agree that 75 to 60 is a drop that should be avoided just because of the perception and the types of conditions where both limits typically apply. When Ohio raised their speed limits, for example, they kept 65 zones in places such that the limit never dropped from 70 to anything other than 65.
On I-94 entering the Bismarck / Mandan metro area in North Dakota the speed limit drops from 75 to 60. Worse, on I-29 entering the Fargo / Moorhead metro area the speed limit drops from 75 straight to 55. On I-94 from the west at least there is about a 1/2 mile to mile 65 m.p.h. "buffer" between the 75 and 55 zones. (By the way, I think the 55 zones in the Fargo metro area are ridiculous, especially since both freeways were modernized and widened to 6 lanes.)
In the case of my proposals, I would be happy to have a mile or two of "buffer" between the 75 and 60 zones. In the case of I-5 between MP 7 (I-205) and MP 12 (just north of SR 502) I believe 65 m.p.h. would be appropriate.
(One final note, I made an error in my post last night indicating that the current limit on I-5 from MP 1-7 is 60 m.p.h. That should have read MP 1-9. Although I edited last nights post, the error remains in the "quote" of my post above.)
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 15, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on April 14, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 14, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
MP 0- 12 -- <current limit> (12 miles)
MP 12- 55 -- 75 MPH (43 miles)
MP 55- 89 -- <current limit> (34 miles)
MP 89-101 -- 75 MPH (12 miles)
MP101-112 -- <current limit> (11 miles)
MP112-120 -- 65 MPH (8 miles)
MP120-138 -- <current limit> (18 miles)
MP138-154 -- 65 MPH (16 miles)
MP154-206 -- <current limit> (52 miles)
MP206-226 -- 75 MPH (20 miles)
MP226-275 -- <current limit> (49 miles)
The current limits for I-5 are as follows: MP 0-1 (50), MP 1-7 (60), MP 7-76 (70/60), MP 76-83 (60), MP 83-102 (70/60), MP 102-206 (60), MP 206-224.5 (70/60), MP 224.5-231 (60), MP 231-242 (70/60), MP 242-259 (60), MP 259-275 (70/60), MP 275-276 (35 Int'l Border Zone).
Wow, I didn't realize how often the speed limit changes on I-5 through Washington. With that said, I do find one issue with your proposal and that's having the speed limit drop from 75 to 60. A 15 MPH decrease in the speed limit is quite drastic IMO and is something that's not allowed, AFAIK, in California.
A few states allow it. New York has at least one place on an Interstate highway where the limit drops from 55 to 40. I do agree that 75 to 60 is a drop that should be avoided just because of the perception and the types of conditions where both limits typically apply. When Ohio raised their speed limits, for example, they kept 65 zones in places such that the limit never dropped from 70 to anything other than 65.
I always point out I-295 in NJ, where the limit drops 20 mph from 55 to 35 mph around the Aljo curve at Rt. 42/I-76 (although it's not enforced in terms of cops sitting there waiting to snag people...it basically functions as a more meaningful advisory speed).
Also, approaching the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the limit drops from 65 mph to 50mph on both sides of the bridge.
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?
^^ I think they mean guardrails would need to be extended to meet a 75 MPH design speed along with other crash barriers.
Here's some more details from the study: http://goo.gl/N8N9tv & http://goo.gl/zLL6px
Quote
Currently, this section of I-90 is posted at 70 mph and the average speed (the speed that half the drivers are traveling at) is 73 mph. Findings from other states that have increased speed limits above 70 mph found that the speeds increase between 1 and 4 mph. If drivers in Washington follow the trend found in other states, average passenger vehicle speeds on I-90 would likely increase up to 4 mph.
We estimated potential changes in travel times, crashes, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at both 2 and 4 mph increases in average passenger vehicle speeds.
Quote
The five year crash history (starting in 2011) shows a total of 1,079 crashes on this stretch of roadway, with 15 fatal and 28 serious injury collisions. Using national research and societal cost numbers, we can expect to see the following if the speed limit was increased:
- At a 2 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an additional 0.62 fatal/serious injury crash annual and an additional societal cost due to crashes of about $4 million.
- At a 4 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an increase of 1.27 fatal/serious injury crashes annually and an additional societal cost of $8.3 million
Quote
"Our top priority as agencies is traffic safety," said Acting Secretary of Transportation Roger Millar. "We made this decision through a lens of safety, and it's notable that all three agencies agreed the increased safety risks were too high."
"Our state's Target Zero Plan aims to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2030," said Darrin Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission Director, "We believe this decision supports this goal."
"The Washington State Patrol stands with two of our many safety partners, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Department of Transportation regarding our goal of Target Zero," said Chief John R. Batiste. "After careful review of the facts and the comments from the public, I support the decision not to increase the speed limit."
So, ultimately, the Target Zero campaign is likely the blockade here.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2016, 02:35:45 PM
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?
1.27 fatalities x cost of human life + N serious injuries x cost of injuries... sum total is $8.3M. Source: I do this for a living.
Wow, Washington just out-Oregoned Oregon. Perhaps someone should tell them to stop listening to the insurance industry (which really needs to be muzzled for all the falsehoods they spew).
Quote from: Alps on May 11, 2016, 05:56:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2016, 02:35:45 PM
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?
1.27 fatalities x cost of human life + N serious injuries x cost of injuries... sum total is $8.3M. Source: I do this for a living.
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. In your opinion, is this annual safety cost relevant to a limit increase?
Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2016, 05:59:00 PM
Wow, Washington just out-Oregoned Oregon. Perhaps someone should tell them to stop listening to the insurance industry (which really needs to be muzzled for all the falsehoods they spew).
My thought as well. Washington is usually pretty good when it comes to reasonable changes, such as a speed limit increase. Their report (http://goo.gl/zLL6px), alarmingly, mentions nothing about the 85th percentile, which to me, is the starting point of any speed limit increase.
However, I suspect the "increase" of 1.27 D/SI annually is conflicting with that Target Zero baloney, regardless of whether or not it's a statistic that actually holds true:
Quote from: Roger Millar, Washington State Secretary for Transportation
"Our top priority as agencies is traffic safety...[w]e made this decision through a lens of safety, and it's notable that all three agencies agreed the increased safety risks were too high."
Quote from: Darrin Grondel, WTSC Director
"Our state's Target Zero Plan aims to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2030...[w]e believe this decision supports this goal."
I found an old article from the Seattle Times (http://goo.gl/Cvn6xg) from the last time the state increased the speed limit, which was in 1996. Here's some interesting facts:
Quote
Transportation Secretary Sid Morrison said raising the speed limit will not make a significant difference in the way most people already drive.
Quote
Morrison said the speed that 85 percent of drivers travel at is safe because people have a "natural tendency" to drive at a reasonable speed.
Quote
Since officials say higher limits wouldn't significantly change behavior, they don't expect an increase in accidents. Annette Sandberg, State Patrol chief, said the state will monitor the interstates to see whether accidents increase and adjust speed limits if necessary.
Quote
Some environmentalists oppose increasing limits because the state would be validating speeds that increase air pollution and energy consumption. But Morrison said that through their actions, people have already decided how they feel about conservation.
A 2011 safety study (https://goo.gl/Y1Q67v) (page 7) also shows that, although there is an occasional bump in the deaths per-100mil VMT from time to time, the number of deaths on public roads in Washington has been steadily decreasing, with no obvious tie to speed limits.
Vision Zero, Target Zero, and its other aliases, are a utter load of crap. Are these people really that deluded to think they can actually eliminate injury accidents, by following draconian practices that go against engineering common sense, especially when those practices are simply a thinly-veiled attempt at "revenue enhancement"?
Quote from: Tarkus on May 11, 2016, 09:46:18 PM
Vision Zero, Target Zero, and its other aliases, are a utter load of crap. Are these people really that deluded to think they can actually eliminate injury accidents, by following draconian practices that go against engineering common sense, especially when those practices are simply a thinly-veiled attempt at "revenue enhancement"?
Zero is an impossible goal. You will never eliminate injury accidents unless you completely eliminate motorized land vehicles that don't ride on rails altogether.
Now wait a minute.
Vision Zero is about city streets, where there's pedestrians and cyclists who could and do die to vehicular collisions. This has nothing to do with increasing speed limits on a high-speed freeway in the rural hinterlands. And while a "zero" is an impossibility, getting as close as possible to zero deaths from vehicle-pedestrian collisions is a goal that everyone should agree with, because who wants more dead people? And besides that, the extra speed you gain without these measures amounts to a whopping minute or two, which would be cut down by traffic light cycles in the city. It's about building safer streets for all modes, instead of kneeling over and letting cars run rampant through an urban environment; it's not like we're proposing a signaled crosswalk in the middle of I-5 here. Be reasonable.
---
Enough off-topic spam. Back to Eastern Washington.
I don't mind stomaching the extra costs to enable 75 mph speed limits, given that most are already speeding anyway and it would be better to modify the roadway to accommodate them rather than risk injury and death. I would like to see better safety features, especially in the median, for these segments. Cable wires aren't cutting it at much lower speeds, and there's plenty of risk for a head-on collision that still remains (this doesn't change with 60 or 75...it's just a fact of life with drivers).
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
And while a "zero" is an impossibility, getting as close as possible to zero deaths from vehicle-pedestrian collisions is a goal that everyone should agree with, because who wants more dead people?
I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone who wants more dead or injured people. But you will find people (like myself) who disagree with many of the tactics that Vision Zero campaigns and the officials supporting such schemes use. "Target Zero" sounds about like "VZ Lite", underpinned by the same unrealistic goal.
Quote from: Tarkus on May 12, 2016, 12:40:06 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
And while a "zero" is an impossibility, getting as close as possible to zero deaths from vehicle-pedestrian collisions is a goal that everyone should agree with, because who wants more dead people?
I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone who wants more dead or injured people. But you will find people (like myself) who disagree with many of the tactics that Vision Zero campaigns and the officials supporting such schemes use. "Target Zero" sounds about like "VZ Lite", underpinned by the same unrealistic goal.
Precisely. Look at New York. Vision Zero is an all-encompassing strategy that looks at everything and is now being used by some as a reason not to increase Downstate speed limits, even on expressways, and to justify the much-hated school zone speed cameras. And, of course, they didn't retime many of the signals for the new 25 mph speed limit, so you're going to get stopped at every light. My dad was down there for business a couple weeks ago and is still complaining about that to me. The fact is that per-capita highway deaths are decreasing even as speed limits go up. Why? Everyone travels the same speed and cars are so much safer now. Get in a high-speed accident and you have a decent chance at surviving. That wasn't the case 30 years ago. Concerning pedestrians, automatic breaking is becoming standard on more vehicles each year. Can't stop a pedestrian from being killed if they step in front of a moving vehicle and the vehicle cannot physically stop.
Quote
Currently, this section of I-90 is posted at 70 mph and the average speed (the speed that half the drivers are traveling at) is 73 mph. Findings from other states that have increased speed limits above 70 mph found that the speeds increase between 1 and 4 mph. If drivers in Washington follow the trend found in other states, average passenger vehicle speeds on I-90 would likely increase up to 4 mph.
One odd thing I did notice when I was in Washington earlier this month is that the level of respect for the 70 MPH limit is a lot higher than I expected it would be. This corroborates my observation.
Normally I am dismissive of any concern that changing the speed limit will have a significant impact on how fast most people drive, but if Washington has a culture where people actually pay some degree of mind to what the speed limit is, then perhaps it will.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2016, 04:06:30 PM
Here's some more details from the study: http://goo.gl/N8N9tv & http://goo.gl/zLL6px
Quote
Currently, this section of I-90 is posted at 70 mph and the average speed (the speed that half the drivers are traveling at) is 73 mph. Findings from other states that have increased speed limits above 70 mph found that the speeds increase between 1 and 4 mph. If drivers in Washington follow the trend found in other states, average passenger vehicle speeds on I-90 would likely increase up to 4 mph.
We estimated potential changes in travel times, crashes, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at both 2 and 4 mph increases in average passenger vehicle speeds.
Quote
The five year crash history (starting in 2011) shows a total of 1,079 crashes on this stretch of roadway, with 15 fatal and 28 serious injury collisions. Using national research and societal cost numbers, we can expect to see the following if the speed limit was increased:
- At a 2 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an additional 0.62 fatal/serious injury crash annual and an additional societal cost due to crashes of about $4 million.
- At a 4 mph average speed increase: our review of data suggests an increase of 1.27 fatal/serious injury crashes annually and an additional societal cost of $8.3 million
Quote
"Our top priority as agencies is traffic safety," said Acting Secretary of Transportation Roger Millar. "We made this decision through a lens of safety, and it's notable that all three agencies agreed the increased safety risks were too high."
"Our state's Target Zero Plan aims to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2030," said Darrin Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission Director, "We believe this decision supports this goal."
"The Washington State Patrol stands with two of our many safety partners, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Department of Transportation regarding our goal of Target Zero," said Chief John R. Batiste. "After careful review of the facts and the comments from the public, I support the decision not to increase the speed limit."
So, ultimately, the Target Zero campaign is likely the blockade here.
All of that "research" is total bupkis because none of it is based in fact. It's all conjecture. "Well MA @ 65MPH has less fatal accidents than FL @ 70 so that must mean..." No. That's not how it works. All you have to do is look at Montana when they instated speed limits on their highways. Their fatal accident numbers hit 10-year highs when they put up those 65MPH signs.
Also, the argument about people not slowing down when it rains heavy - are you kidding me? You do realize it snows in half the country, right? Do you think we put up 30MPH signs everywhere because that happens? No. We adjust our speed according to the conditions - and so does everyone else when there's adverse conditions.
You can't continue to treat people like children - or else they will just be children.