http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1582773727/65-mph-just-not-fast-enough (http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1582773727/65-mph-just-not-fast-enough)
If this goes through, it will be very nice, but I really think most interstates in Illinois could easily handle 75.
Main objection I have is that this is too much like Iowa's law in that it only covers interstates, not all interstate grade freeways. Might make a good excuse to give US 34 between I-74 and Monmouth and the future US 20 freeway from Rockford to Iowa intestate numbers.
Still would also like to see a bill that allows heavily improved two lane routes go higher than 55 mph. Best candidate is this section of IL 146:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.382707,-88.79631&spn=0,359.121094&z=11&layer=c&cbll=37.423963,-88.951934&panoid=gJpX7T09b80Hbm2-b5-E1g&cbp=12,105.95,,0,1.13 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.382707,-88.79631&spn=0,359.121094&z=11&layer=c&cbll=37.423963,-88.951934&panoid=gJpX7T09b80Hbm2-b5-E1g&cbp=12,105.95,,0,1.13)
I always wondered why Illinois had only a 65 mph speed limit while being predominantly rural.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb4%2FUS_speed_limits.svg%2F800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png&hash=eb4a847596c73614125832092df395dc828e4be7)
I say make a 75-mph corridor!
Agreed that Illinois freeways could handle 75mph, but I think 70mph would be best to match with the surrounding states (IN, KY, MO, IA). Personally, I think that the 70mph zones should include many Chicagoland expressways (Ryan express lanes, Kennedy express lanes, Stevenson from the Ryan outwards, I-57) and the entire Tollway system.
I have been through IL many times. The interstates are straight enough to handle the high speeds. They are also very rural with few exits. I wouldn't doubt if the limit was increased within the next year.
One of my pet peeves about Illinois is the 55mph speed limits on the suburban Chicago freeways, when they can easily be 60 or 65. I just drove on some of those earlier this week.
AAA opposes the increase:
http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/87530317.html (http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/87530317.html)
Chris, if you created the speed limit map -- one segment of I-15 in Utah is posted at 80mph, last I heard.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2010, 09:35:23 AM
AAA opposes the increase:
http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/87530317.html (http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/87530317.html)
Yeah, I mean, 70 mph... that's mindboggling...
Quote from: oscar on March 13, 2010, 09:43:41 AM
Chris, if you created the speed limit map -- one segment of I-15 in Utah is posted at 80mph, last I heard.
I got it from Wikipedia. But I thought the Utah section was still a test limit?
AAA's reasons are micromanaging. I wonder if they realize how fast drivers in Illinois - especially the Chicago area - drive. The limit may be 55, but most traffic goes 65-70. There are several reckless drivers as well going 90+ and going through the obstacle course.
What hard curves in the road :pan: the only one I can get is the Cherry Valley Interchange and Chicago expressways - esp downtown.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 08, 2010, 03:22:40 PM
Still would also like to see a bill that allows heavily improved two lane routes go higher than 55 mph. Best candidate is this section of IL 146:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.382707,-88.79631&spn=0,359.121094&z=11&layer=c&cbll=37.423963,-88.951934&panoid=gJpX7T09b80Hbm2-b5-E1g&cbp=12,105.95,,0,1.13 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.382707,-88.79631&spn=0,359.121094&z=11&layer=c&cbll=37.423963,-88.951934&panoid=gJpX7T09b80Hbm2-b5-E1g&cbp=12,105.95,,0,1.13)
Until I joined the AAroads community, I didn't know two lane roads were posted above 55, as all the two lane routes in Georgia are no higher than 55. And all non-interstate freeways don't have a speed limit higher than 65, when they, in my opinion, could handle it. But posting reasonable speed limits is the way to go.
Be well,
Bryant
I've never seen two lane roads above 55 either. Even interstates are never posted above 65 here.
rural two-lane undivided roads can be up to 75 mph in Texas.
Quote from: Chris on March 16, 2010, 10:08:53 AM
rural two-lane undivided roads can be up to 75 mph in Texas.
Quite a few of them in west Texas (at least on the main U.S./state highway network -- secondary roads like "farm to market" I'm not sure about) are indeed posted at 75mph for autos in the day only. That really helped on my trip out there in early 2008.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2010, 09:35:23 AM
AAA opposes the increase:
http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/87530317.html (http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/87530317.html)
Quote
AAA also opposes the proposal because state budget cuts will affect state police officers ability to patrol.
well, here's one fewer thing to patrol, then. 70 is nice, but 90 would be ideal. Goodness knows people drive that fast anyway.
Quote from: deanej on March 16, 2010, 09:57:04 AM
I've never seen two lane roads above 55 either. Even interstates are never posted above 65 here.
You don't travel far enough west :biggrin:
And for possible proof of how well drivers in Illinois are obeying the existing limits, try this site:
http://www.stl-traffic.org/Default.aspx (http://www.stl-traffic.org/Default.aspx)
For reference, the only places posted less than 65 in Illinois are I-270 west of IL 203, I-55/70 westward from just east of IL 203, and somewhere on I-64 inside I-255. Either one of the speed sensors is defective today or traffic is really moving on I-55/70 at 78 mph near IL 111.
I watch the Sigalert site often, and California drivers are always flooring to capacity; 70 - 75 mph in greater Los Angeles. I doubt if the speed limits are higher than 60 - 65 in much of urban Southern California.
Quote from: Chris on March 16, 2010, 02:27:20 PM
I watch the Sigalert site often, and California drivers are always flooring to capacity; 70 - 75 mph in greater Los Angeles. I doubt if the speed limits are higher than 60 - 65 in much of urban Southern California.
From what I recall, there are no 70 MPH posted speed limits in urban areas: I-5 northbound entering Sacramento County has a large guide sign reflecting the 5 MPH posted speed limited drop once one enters the cityl imits of Elk Grove.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 16, 2010, 01:37:27 PM
Quote from: deanej on March 16, 2010, 09:57:04 AM
I've never seen two lane roads above 55 either. Even interstates are never posted above 65 here.
You don't travel far enough west :biggrin:
And for possible proof of how well drivers in Illinois are obeying the existing limits, try this site:
http://www.stl-traffic.org/Default.aspx (http://www.stl-traffic.org/Default.aspx)
For reference, the only places posted less than 65 in Illinois are I-270 west of IL 203, I-55/70 westward from just east of IL 203, and somewhere on I-64 inside I-255. Either one of the speed sensors is defective today or traffic is really moving on I-55/70 at 78 mph near IL 111.
Usually on the Chicago traffic maps, it's because the traffic really is moving faster than the posted 55mph limit. Even the traffic on the morning TV news will show traffic moving at 65 or 70.
Quote from: Brandon on March 16, 2010, 10:07:04 PM
the traffic really is moving faster than the posted 55mph limit.
you'd think that is a reason for the legislature to come to its senses and post the urban road at 70 or 75mph. But no, gotta keep that avenue of revenue available for exploitation.
What bothers the heck out of me is that 2009 has been one of the safest years (least amount of deaths) in quite sometime. And the majority of the interstates are at higher speeds now than what they were in the next comparable year to 2009.
So that pretty much shoots the AAA's theory to hell, although there will be those that will say that 2009 was safer since due to the economy, unemployment and higher gas prices, less people were on the roads. Count me in on the side that says that if you post speed limits that compliment (not restrict) the speed capacity of the specific road, there are less accidents (and deaths).
I only know of a couple roads in New York that are posted around the speed they move at:
-I-490 between Fairport and Bushnell's Basin
-US 11 between Fort Drum and Potsdam (in rural areas)
In both cases, this is due to congestion rather than how the speed limit is set.
I just realized why AAA opposes the increase. Increase limit may lead to less tickets issued. AAA sells car insurance. Less tickets issued means they can't jack up premiums on high-risk drivers.
Quote from: Master son on March 19, 2010, 07:02:14 AM
I just realized why AAA opposes the increase. Increase limit may lead to less tickets issued. AAA sells car insurance. Less tickets issued means they can't jack up premiums on high-risk drivers.
Then AAA should be boycotted. I don't use them anyway but I certainly won't use them in the future now.
I've gotten my money's worth from them in terms of discounts, free tows, etc...
Quote from: Chris on March 16, 2010, 02:27:20 PM
I watch the Sigalert site often, and California drivers are always flooring to capacity; 70 - 75 mph in greater Los Angeles. I doubt if the speed limits are higher than 60 - 65 in much of urban Southern California.
Closer to downtown Los Angeles, the speed limits are 55.
Welcome to 1996, Illinois!
/did they really do it?
No Legislature has adjourned after passing something they called a budget
Quote from: Chris on March 08, 2010, 03:27:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb4%2FUS_speed_limits.svg%2F800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png&hash=eb4a847596c73614125832092df395dc828e4be7)
Look at that west-coast state sticking out like a sore thumb.
^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century. For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.
What about Utah's 80 mph sections along Interstate 15 (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705276163,00.html)?
That graphic comes from Wikipedia and hasn't been updated since 2007. So not only do you have the 80 MPH along I-15, but you also have Virginia now allowing up to 70 MPH.
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century. For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.
Oregon being at 65 creates a really strange situation crossing into the state from Idaho on I-84. The speed limit drops to 65 from 75-which makes no sense considering that eastern Oregon isn't any more congested than Idaho, in fact less so considering that a vehicle traveling west on I-84 has just gone through the Boise-Nampa-Caldwell area not too far back. Illinois being at 65 too is really odd, especially with all of the downstate interstates that go through long open stretches. Outside of the St. Louis area, there isn't any area south of I-72 that shouldn't be at least 70.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on June 08, 2010, 03:32:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century. For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.
Oregon being at 65 creates a really strange situation crossing into the state from Idaho on I-84. The speed limit drops to 65 from 75-which makes no sense considering that eastern Oregon isn't any more congested than Idaho, in fact less so considering that a vehicle traveling west on I-84 has just gone through the Boise-Nampa-Caldwell area not too far back. Illinois being at 65 too is really odd, especially with all of the downstate interstates that go through long open stretches. Outside of the St. Louis area, there isn't any area south of I-72 that shouldn't be at least 70.
Hell, most of Chicagoland could be 70. The tollway exits are far enough apart, and people drive 70-75 anyway.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2010, 11:22:32 PM
Count me in on the side that says that if you post speed limits that complement (not restrict) the speed capacity of the specific road, there are less accidents (and deaths).
One thing I like about Colorado--the DOT seems to be on board with that--at least somewhat. They recently upped the speed limit on I-25 in south metro Denver by 5-10 mph to more accurately match the actual conditions--stating at the time that it would enhance safety by reducing the speed differential between people who were traveling the posted limit in order to stay under the limit and those who were traveling at a speed closer to the design speed. They're thinking about raising the limit 10mph on a section of Santa Fe Drive as well for the same reasons. Now, if they could take care of I-25 north of downtown...
QuoteOne thing I like about Colorado--the DOT seems to be on board with that--at least somewhat. They recently upped the speed limit on I-25 in south metro Denver by 5-10 mph to more accurately match the actual conditions--stating at the time that it would enhance safety by reducing the speed differential between people who were traveling the posted limit in order to stay under the limit and those who were traveling at a speed closer to the design speed. They're thinking about raising the limit 10mph on a section of Santa Fe Drive as well for the same reasons. Now, if they could take care of I-25 north of downtown...
Yeah- the parts of Denver that are 55 are a complete joke. I don't think they even give out tickets as long as you keep it under 70- at least that's been my experience.
I-70 east of town out by the airport desperately needs to be changed as well- I don't drive the section west of I-270 very often, but the section east of I-270 could definitely be 65. Heck, there's absolutely no reason why I-270 needs to be 55.
(edit: 1000th post wooo :birthday:)
Quote from: corco on June 10, 2010, 08:33:37 PM
QuoteOne thing I like about Colorado--the DOT seems to be on board with that--at least somewhat. They recently upped the speed limit on I-25 in south metro Denver by 5-10 mph to more accurately match the actual conditions--stating at the time that it would enhance safety by reducing the speed differential between people who were traveling the posted limit in order to stay under the limit and those who were traveling at a speed closer to the design speed. They're thinking about raising the limit 10mph on a section of Santa Fe Drive as well for the same reasons. Now, if they could take care of I-25 north of downtown...
Yeah- the parts of Denver that are 55 are a complete joke. I don't think they even give out tickets as long as you keep it under 70- at least that's been my experience.
Shoot--you'd need a death wish to drive 55 on most of those parts.
I couldn't figure out why Illinois couldn't increase the speed to 70. It's one thing to have it a 65 around Chicago.
I don't understand why most states haven't upped their limits to 70. Most people drive it anyway, and there's enough open space in most areas (except the urban ones) to merit it, unless the road is horribly substandard *cough* Most of Pennsylvania *cough*.
Quote from: golden eagle on June 13, 2010, 03:05:04 AM
I couldn't figure out why Illinois couldn't increase the speed to 70. It's one thing to have it a 65 around Chicago.
No, 70 would be fine around Chicago. Michigan has it 70 in most parts of Detroit.
My understanding is that Chicagoland's speed limits had more to do with the federal Clean Air Act than anything else. At least, that's Cleveland's reason its area freeways (except the Ohio Turnpike) are posted at 60mph instead of the 65mph in other areas of Ohio.
^ The Chicagoland speed limits may also have to do with local legislators, as Chicago was exempted from repealing the split auto/truck speed limits unlike the rest of the state.
Does it really make a difference to the environment what speed cars are traveling at? :rolleyes:
QuoteDoes it really make a difference to the environment what speed cars are traveling at?
Believe it or not, yes it does...
Quote from: Master son on July 13, 2010, 06:25:38 AM
Does it really make a difference to the environment what speed cars are traveling at? :rolleyes:
Not too terribly much. The worst environmental speed is zero, when they're idling or in stop and go traffic. The difference between 55 and 70 isn't so much. And people will ignore it anyway (as observed in Texas). The emissions controls on the car have more of an effect, but the safety nannies are the ones who team up with the enviro-wienies to get crappy laws like that.
Yeah, it's so crappy that speed limit laws are enacted to keep people driving at a safe speed. And it is a proven fact that the faster a car is driven over 55 mph, the lower gas mileage it gets. I don't have the exact numbers offhand, but mileage drops a certain percentage for every mile an hour over 55, due the the effects of wind resistance and aerodynamics.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 13, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
Yeah, it's so crappy that speed limit laws are enacted to keep people driving at a safe speed. And it is a proven fact that the faster a car is driven over 55 mph, the lower gas mileage it gets. I don't have the exact numbers offhand, but mileage drops a certain percentage for every mile an hour over 55, due the the effects of wind resistance and aerodynamics.
Whose job is it to monitor gas mileage? IMHO, it should not be anyone other than the driver.
Anyway, gas mileage above 55mph has gotten much better since the early 1970s, and the whole drop in speed only yielded a savings of 0.1%. Not worth it to try to control behavior. Better to set a reasonable limit (i.e. 70mph) and keep traffic flowing.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 13, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
Yeah, it's so crappy that speed limit laws are enacted to keep people driving at a safe speed.
except it doesn't work that way. If
everyone drives 75, the road is a lot safer than with our current mix of legal eagles and grandmas who drive 55, and those who know damn well they can get away with 75.
A speed limit of 55 is innately not the worst idea in the world. Combining that with an enforcement standard of "my donut tasted crappy this morning, so everyone's getting a ticket" is significantly worse.
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2010, 08:21:01 AM
And people will ignore it anyway (as observed in Texas).
actually Texas has the most speed limit enforcement I know of. West Texas, anyway. Used to be that the speed limit was 75, and you could get away with 84 and not much more. Now, on certain stretches, the speed limit is 80 ... and you can get away with 84 and not much more. How's that for signing accurately to the law.
furthermore, two-lane roads have the option of being signed 75 as well - that is because Texas is confident (usually quite rightly) that all of their roads are built to the capacity that they need to handle.
I don't know how well night speed limits are enforced. I tend to drop a few miles per hour just on grounds of general safety: everything is bigger in Texas, including the deer!
^^ Jake, I was referring to the environmental speed limits used around Houston.
Quoteand the whole drop in speed only yielded a savings of 0.1%.
Are you referring to pre-/post-change studies in Houston? Or cars in general?
Because if it's the latter, it's more than that. My difference between 75 MPH and 55 MPH is closer to 8-10% (typcally a 3 MPG increase), and I drive a 2006 Corolla.
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century. For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.
I agree. When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65. I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury). When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on August 01, 2010, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century. For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.
I agree. When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65. I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury). When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic.
You can't say these things until you've traveled the road more than once. I-84 should be nowhere near 75 in Connecticut, not to mention it really can't move above 50 most times. The NJ Turnpike is designed for 75-80 mph or higher, but it has such a high truck mix that fatal accidents will skyrocket for every 5 mph you add. And we've discussed split limits before, and they're less desirable than just keeping everyone at 65. Same issue with I-95 in MD - fewer trucks, by a long shot, but then again you have four lanes in each direction, which gives you more weaving and certainly more traffic in general, thus conducive to lower speeds. There's a reason the Northeast moves slower!
Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 01, 2010, 07:06:02 PM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on August 01, 2010, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 08, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century. For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.
I agree. When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65. I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury). When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic.
You can't say these things until you've traveled the road more than once. I-84 should be nowhere near 75 in Connecticut, not to mention it really can't move above 50 most times. The NJ Turnpike is designed for 75-80 mph or higher, but it has such a high truck mix that fatal accidents will skyrocket for every 5 mph you add. And we've discussed split limits before, and they're less desirable than just keeping everyone at 65. Same issue with I-95 in MD - fewer trucks, by a long shot, but then again you have four lanes in each direction, which gives you more weaving and certainly more traffic in general, thus conducive to lower speeds. There's a reason the Northeast moves slower!
It may be true that traffic is a major factor in speed limits, but most of the time (barring accidents/rush hour) traffic moves on I-84 and most other roads in CT faster than the speed limit. A speed limit is a limit, it isn't a requirement that drivers must go 65. I believe in following the flow of traffic. That's just a opinion of a person that has lived in CT for his entire life.
speed debate split into a new topic in General Highway Talk --ms
It's why I call them safety Nazi's. I hated Missouri's front plates requirement. I have never heard of any one getting caught or not caught because of the front plates or lack thereof. In a tight budget times how much would Missouri save by not having to make 2 plates for each vehicle?
Here's a different idea for the speed limits. each lane has a specific speed limit. Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70. by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law. No passing on the right either.
Quote from: Brandon on March 08, 2010, 04:40:21 PM
Agreed that Illinois freeways could handle 75mph, but I think 70mph would be best to match with the surrounding states (IN, KY, MO, IA). Personally, I think that the 70mph zones should include many Chicagoland expressways (Ryan express lanes, Kennedy express lanes, Stevenson from the Ryan outwards, I-57) and the entire Tollway system.
Since Oregon and Wisconsin are also surrounded by 70-mph states, they should raise the speed limit to that number as well. And Kansas (as well as the rest of Texas) should go back to 75 mph, as it did in the old days.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 16, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
Here's a different idea for the speed limits. each lane has a specific speed limit. Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70. by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law. No passing on the right either.
the left lane should be minimum 70, maximum 99. if you want to go, go. if not, stay home.
Texas just proposed and passed legislation to raise the speed limit on I-10 & I-20 in West Texas from 80 MPH to 85 MPH
now we'll see what the enforcement is.
everybody's poor these days.
their word against yours.
Quote from: jackson1834 on April 09, 2011, 01:33:56 AM
Texas just proposed and passed legislation to raise the speed limit on I-10 & I-20 in West Texas from 80 MPH to 85 MPH
As if 80 isn't fast enough, huh?
I usually do between 68-72 MPH on 75 MPH stretches of interstate, mainly to conserve on gas. Also because that was my usual "cruising speed" on 65 MPH highways in Ohio, when I used to live there.
Why can't our government be as smart as the Germans? On the autobahn there's only a speed limit for buses, trucks, and vehicles with trailers. For other vehicles there's no speed limit at all (I'm guessing in rural areas, like downstate Illinois)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 17, 2011, 04:42:22 PMthe left lane should be minimum 70, maximum 99. if you want to go, go. if not, stay home.
And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour? The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush. There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph. Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.
In addition, if one of the current lanes is converted into a toll lane, than traffic in the other lanes will move even more slowly. You might have stop-and-go hour traffic at 7:30 PM in the free lanes while people paying $0.50-$1.00 per mile might be going at 75 mph. Because of that, a toll lane proposal wouldn't be very popular unless the tolls would only be on newly constructed road.
Also, many people speed because the speed limits are set artificially low and they know they can drive faster safely. People have been conditioned to view speed limits not as an actual limit, but as a way of saying that it's safe to go 10-20 mph above the limit. If you raise the speed limit to 75 mph and the safe maximum speed is 80 mph, how many people will be involved in accidents because they go 85-90 mph? Any increase in the speed limit to an 85% traffic threshold must include a public awareness campaign that admits that past speed limits on the road were not made for safety reasons, but political reasons. The campaign also must mention that the limit is a firm limit (drivers will be ticketed for going even 1-5 mph above the limit), and be fully enforced (with the hiring of additional police officers). Otherwise, any speed limit must factor in the tendency to go 10-20 mph above the limit.
Quote from: JasonMath on May 29, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour? The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush. There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph. Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.
Traffic jams happen because one vehicle wants to go slower than the others. If the minimum speed limit were obeyed, this would not happen. Just look at Buffalo, NY: the interstates are congested enough to cause major backups in most cities, but they flow smoothly because everyone moves at the same speed.
QuoteAlso, many people speed because the speed limits are set artificially low and they know they can drive faster safely. People have been conditioned to view speed limits not as an actual limit, but as a way of saying that it's safe to go 10-20 mph above the limit. If you raise the speed limit to 75 mph and the safe maximum speed is 80 mph, how many people will be involved in accidents because they go 85-90 mph? Any increase in the speed limit to an 85% traffic threshold must include a public awareness campaign that admits that past speed limits on the road were not made for safety reasons, but political reasons. The campaign also must mention that the limit is a firm limit (drivers will be ticketed for going even 1-5 mph above the limit), and be fully enforced (with the hiring of additional police officers). Otherwise, any speed limit must factor in the tendency to go 10-20 mph above the limit.
This is false. Most people ignore speed limits entirely and drive at the speed they feel comfortable at. Studies support this. The idea that people speed at x amount above the limit is nothing more than hogwash spouted by the people who want low speed limits.
Quote from: deanej on May 30, 2011, 05:54:37 PM
Quote from: JasonMath on May 29, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour? The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush. There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph. Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.
Traffic jams happen because one vehicle wants to go slower than the others. If the minimum speed limit were obeyed, this would not happen. Just look at Buffalo, NY: the interstates are congested enough to cause major backups in most cities, but they flow smoothly because everyone moves at the same speed.
Actually, in rush hour a lot of traffic forms because off-ramps can't handle the sheer volume of traffic, backing up onto the mainline. Combine that with people jockeying for position to take the exit ramps and you get a slow down. Rush hour doesn't happen because that's when the 'slow folks' decide to drive on the freeway.
Quote
QuoteAlso, many people speed because the speed limits are set artificially low and they know they can drive faster safely. People have been conditioned to view speed limits not as an actual limit, but as a way of saying that it's safe to go 10-20 mph above the limit. If you raise the speed limit to 75 mph and the safe maximum speed is 80 mph, how many people will be involved in accidents because they go 85-90 mph? Any increase in the speed limit to an 85% traffic threshold must include a public awareness campaign that admits that past speed limits on the road were not made for safety reasons, but political reasons. The campaign also must mention that the limit is a firm limit (drivers will be ticketed for going even 1-5 mph above the limit), and be fully enforced (with the hiring of additional police officers). Otherwise, any speed limit must factor in the tendency to go 10-20 mph above the limit.
This is false. Most people ignore speed limits entirely and drive at the speed they feel comfortable at. Studies support this. The idea that people speed at x amount above the limit is nothing more than hogwash spouted by the people who want low speed limits.
Average speed people drive, from what I read, is 72mph. Regardless of the actual limit. It's the comfort zone. Will people speed just to speed? Yes. But they do that now anyways. Raise the speed limit, but up the fines for speeding on 'high speed corridors' like freeways or expressways.
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 02, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: deanej on May 30, 2011, 05:54:37 PM
Quote from: JasonMath on May 29, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour? The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush. There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph. Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.
Traffic jams happen because one vehicle wants to go slower than the others. If the minimum speed limit were obeyed, this would not happen. Just look at Buffalo, NY: the interstates are congested enough to cause major backups in most cities, but they flow smoothly because everyone moves at the same speed.
Actually, in rush hour a lot of traffic forms because off-ramps can't handle the sheer volume of traffic, backing up onto the mainline. Combine that with people jockeying for position to take the exit ramps and you get a slow down. Rush hour doesn't happen because that's when the 'slow folks' decide to drive on the freeway.
I mostly agree with that assesment. HOWEVER, The one daily instance that pops out to me in my mind in Chicagoland, mainly cuz i drive it daily, is the SB Tri-State from O'Hare to Wolf Rd. Yes, the entrance ramps from O'Hare and Balmoral way in on it as well as the Cash lanes from the Irving Park Plaza and the O'Hare Oasis entrance ramp. But, there is NO good reason for it to back up beyond the Oasis which it does all the time. Then low and behold, when you get to Wolf Rd, which has no ramps to/from 294, it goes back up to a 65 mph flow. This, i believe, is from dumbass slow cracker drivers (Boers & Bernstein reference) who go 45 in the 2 left lanes or for some reason can't drive when the sun is at a bad angle. The distance from the Oasis to Wolf is about 2 miles.
In any case, to all you bozos out there who do drive like this, get the hell out of my way and stay home. This also goes for people who feel they need to be REALLY cautious with a SNOW FLURRY! Stay Home! These are the same people who also bitch about 30s and 40s in March and 90s in July. You live here. That is the climate. Get used to it or move on. It's not the worst climate in the country (Florida and Louisiana looking at you).
ok i am off my box. :banghead:
Hobsini, +1 :thumbsup:
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on August 01, 2010, 04:47:09 PM
I agree. When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65. I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury). When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic.
I-84 could be 75 between the MA state line and Hartford easily. Between Waterbury and Danbury? Not a chance. WAY too congested, almost all the time. I've clinched eastern I-84 more times than I can count. I'd know.
Quote from: pianocello on April 10, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
Why can't our government be as smart as the Germans? On the autobahn there's only a speed limit for buses, trucks, and vehicles with trailers. For other vehicles there's no speed limit at all (I'm guessing in rural areas, like downstate Illinois)
Because are
people aren't as smart as the Germans.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on February 15, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
Quote from: pianocello on April 10, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
Why can't our government be as smart as the Germans? On the autobahn there's only a speed limit for buses, trucks, and vehicles with trailers. For other vehicles there's no speed limit at all (I'm guessing in rural areas, like downstate Illinois)
Because are people aren't as smart as the Germans.
As you've demonstrated.
I didn't get any sleep the night prior. Cut a guy some slack, dammit. :P
Quote from: JasonMath on May 29, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 17, 2011, 04:42:22 PMthe left lane should be minimum 70, maximum 99. if you want to go, go. if not, stay home.
There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph. Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.
I'd prefer something like the movie
Speed, where the vehicle gets self-detonated if it falls below 50 mph.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 03, 2011, 09:57:52 PM
In any case, to all you bozos out there who do drive like this, get the hell out of my way and stay home. This also goes for people who feel they need to be REALLY cautious with a SNOW FLURRY! Stay Home! These are the same people who also bitch about 30s and 40s in March and 90s in July. You live here. That is the climate. Get used to it or move on. It's not the worst climate in the country (Florida and Louisiana looking at you).
Amen :clap:
I would also add the people that over-drive their vehicle's capabilities and somehow also think 4x4's are immune to the laws of physics. A close second are those that think they're driving an 18-wheeler when attempting to make a right turn.
As for Wisconsin and their fear of posting anything higher than 65, I don't see it happening anytime in the near future. We'll have red-light cameras and lose our front plates before higher speed limits see the light of day. Besides, when Illinois raises theirs, I see big bucks flowing in from the south thanks to our form of "tollbooths" (speed traps). :biggrin:
Wisconsin - the Oregon of the Midwest. :banghead:
i think most freeways in wisconsin outside of milwaukee and madison could handle 75MPH without much problem, though if say US41 was 75MPH from north of milwaukee to green bay, the Fox cities would probably have to slow down to 70, probably in green bay and mabey in oshkosh too, although the oshkosh portion is pretty straight with good interchange spacing....like DaBigE said though, we probably will still be in the slow lane for a while here. more likely to see US12 built from elkhorn-Madison and have that at at 100MPH than see a speed limit increase to 70MPH everywere else within the next 10 years...
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 03, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
i think most freeways in wisconsin outside of milwaukee and madison could handle 75MPH without much problem
They do now. Sometimes, faster than that - though traffic's heavy enough on any of the Interstates south of Portage that it's frequently difficult to sustain more than about 10 over. It's particularly bad on the Madison-Beloit stretch of I-39/90 (still 2 lanes each way).
The 70 mph limits can't come soon enough to Illinois. Anyone who's drive I-39 south of Rockford could attest to that - hell, that thing's so arrow-straight you could do land speed testing on it.
Last year (or two ago), we drove from the Michigan dunes back to Wichita, so time was of the essence. We left on a Sunday morning. It was basically I-80 all the way. I never dipped below 75 across Chicagoland, and never dipped below 80 across the rest of Illinois, yet I was never all that much faster than the regular flow of traffic. On the two-lane highways in rural Illinois (55 mph limit), I've more than once been going over 65 and passed by a cop with no problem. Once, on IL-47, I even passed by a cop while going more than 70 with no problem. Illinois loves speeding.
Illinois always has the occasional weaver going 85-95.
Instead of artificially setting a speed limit, why can't they just adhere to the 85% standard. Besides the aspect of being able to write more speeding tickets if its artificially lower, I see no need the the slowness.
Quote from: dfwtbear on August 06, 2012, 06:05:54 PM
Instead of artificially setting a speed limit, why can't they just adhere to the 85% standard. Besides the aspect of being able to write more speeding tickets if its artificially lower, I see no need the the slowness.
Cops won't make money then.
Quote from: Master son on August 06, 2012, 09:54:28 PM
Quote from: dfwtbear on August 06, 2012, 06:05:54 PM
Instead of artificially setting a speed limit, why can't they just adhere to the 85% standard. Besides the aspect of being able to write more speeding tickets if its artificially lower, I see no need the the slowness.
Cops won't make money then.
They will if they go after the 15%. They pull over well less than 1% of drivers if you think about it - Let's say they're able to deploy 3 police on a stretch of road and each can process someone and pull over the next guy in 15 minutes. They will get 12 vehicles an hour pulled over. Typical freeway volumes are above 1,000 vehicles an hour in each direction - hence the 1%. Most roads would have one police officer, so that's 4 vehicles an hour. Typical volumes of a profitable road would still be in the hundreds of vehicles per hour. So if they really just targeted the top 15% or even top 5%, they would not only have the same pullover rate they do now, but get much more money per bogey.
I've noticed too that people tend to drive fast in Illinois, particularly Chicagoland (but aren't otherwise aggressive). Back when the Tri-State was 55 we were going 65 and getting passed by everything on the road.
who knows what the 85% standard is on any given day?
95% of rural roads don't need speed limits at all. tickets should instead be issued for reckless driving.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 16, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
Here's a different idea for the speed limits. each lane has a specific speed limit. Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70. by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law. No passing on the right either.
Grand idea!
Anyway, I really hope Illinois comes to its senses and makes the maximum speed limit on rural four-lane interstates (or other freeways) 70. That would really improve my drives on I-64, I-57, and I-24 that occur every year.
Missouri should also make their maximum speed limit on rural four-lane freeways (including interstates)
75. :biggrin:
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 10, 2012, 03:41:57 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 16, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
Here's a different idea for the speed limits. each lane has a specific speed limit. Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70. by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law. No passing on the right either.
Grand idea!
Anyway, I really hope Illinois comes to its senses and makes the maximum speed limit on rural four-lane interstates (or other freeways) 70. That would really improve my drives on I-64, I-57, and I-24 that occur every year.
Missouri should also make their maximum speed limit on rural four-lane freeways (including interstates) 75. :biggrin:
No, because if I want to drive 68 mph, I would be required to drive in the left lane. If someone wanted to pass me, I would be legally required to slow down, change lanes, change lanes again, and speed up again.
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 10, 2012, 03:41:57 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 16, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
Here's a different idea for the speed limits. each lane has a specific speed limit. Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70. by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law. No passing on the right either.
Grand idea!
Anyway, I really hope Illinois comes to its senses and makes the maximum speed limit on rural four-lane interstates (or other freeways) 70. That would really improve my drives on I-64, I-57, and I-24 that occur every year.
Missouri should also make their maximum speed limit on rural four-lane freeways (including interstates) 75. :biggrin:
No, because if I want to drive 68 mph, I would be required to drive in the left lane. If someone wanted to pass me, I would be legally required to slow down, change lanes, change lanes again, and speed up again.
Then it's no longer a grand idea. Bummer.
speed limits should never be done on a per-lane basis. 70-70-70 is far more optimal than 70-65-60: it reduces speed differentials (increasing safety) and increases overall limits.
now 70-65-60 vs 55-55-55 is another question.
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2012, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 10, 2012, 03:41:57 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 16, 2011, 04:56:19 PM
Here's a different idea for the speed limits. each lane has a specific speed limit. Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70. by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law. No passing on the right either.
Grand idea!
Anyway, I really hope Illinois comes to its senses and makes the maximum speed limit on rural four-lane interstates (or other freeways) 70. That would really improve my drives on I-64, I-57, and I-24 that occur every year.
Missouri should also make their maximum speed limit on rural four-lane freeways (including interstates) 75. :biggrin:
No, because if I want to drive 68 mph, I would be required to drive in the left lane. If someone wanted to pass me, I would be legally required to slow down, change lanes, change lanes again, and speed up again.
What usually happens when a speed limit increases is that faster traffic moves the same way it always has but that slower traffic speeds up, improving the experience for everyone.
I think you misunderstood. I was referring to having different speed limits lane-by-lane, not an increased overall limit.
I only recall having driven on one highway with a differntial speed limit, and that was in a place where speed limits are widely ignored. In December 2008, I started a brief conversation about it on SkyscraperCity, not knowing what the meaning of the dual signs was. If you speak Spanish or have a decent online translation tool, you can follow it here (posts 469—474, the picture in question being in post 470):
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=330135&page=24#469 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=330135&page=24#469)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2012, 03:14:58 PM
speed limits should never be done on a per-lane basis. 70-70-70 is far more optimal than 70-65-60: it reduces speed differentials (increasing safety) and increases overall limits.
now 70-65-60 vs 55-55-55 is another question.
I understood already, I'm now glad I no longer agree with the 70-65-60 idea. Everything is ok now.
It appears there is a another push to raise the limit in Illinois to 70 this year, but the Chicago area counties have the option of opting out. Bill text:
http://openstates.org/il/bills/98th/SB2356/documents/ILD00126557/ (http://openstates.org/il/bills/98th/SB2356/documents/ILD00126557/)
^^ Unlike the prior bill, it also allows 70 on other 4-lane or higher rural divided highways and 65 (from 55) on other rural highways
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 17, 2013, 08:07:22 PM
It appears there is a another push to raise the limit in Illinois to 70 this year, but the Chicago area counties have the option of opting out. Bill text:
http://openstates.org/il/bills/98th/SB2356/documents/ILD00126557/ (http://openstates.org/il/bills/98th/SB2356/documents/ILD00126557/)
My guess is that Cook'll opt out but the others, especially McHenry and Will will opt in.
My thing is, what is taking Illinois so long to join the 70 train? If Cook, Lake, and Will* wants to stay at 65, let them. The traffic is too dense for 70 mph, so I completely understand those counties' decisions to opt out. It can be pulled off (I've done it), but I can see why most drivers are leery.
There is so much open road outside of Chicago, a speed limit of 70 mph is more than viable. Besides, it would be easier to pull off if Illinois was stricter with their "Slower Traffic Keep Right" rule.
I'm willing to think that Ohio's move to finally up its maximum speed to 70 gave Illinois some motivation to revisit this issue.
*Will County could pull off 70 if they do it west of I-55 and south of I-80.
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2010, 10:51:16 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 13, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
Yeah, it's so crappy that speed limit laws are enacted to keep people driving at a safe speed. And it is a proven fact that the faster a car is driven over 55 mph, the lower gas mileage it gets. I don't have the exact numbers offhand, but mileage drops a certain percentage for every mile an hour over 55, due the the effects of wind resistance and aerodynamics.
Whose job is it to monitor gas mileage? IMHO, it should not be anyone other than the driver.
Anyway, gas mileage above 55mph has gotten much better since the early 1970s, and the whole drop in speed only yielded a savings of 0.1%. Not worth it to try to control behavior. Better to set a reasonable limit (i.e. 70mph) and keep traffic flowing.
Really? My Chevy gets 29 mpg when I drive 70-75 mph, and it gets 42 mpg when I drive 55 mph. With all the distracted driving going on, I frankly think that there are enough irresponsible people driving that raising speed limits just adds gas to the fire. Besides, the last thing that we should be doing is increasing carbon emissions these days, if we wanted to consider things in a more selfless manner.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on April 19, 2013, 05:46:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2010, 10:51:16 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 13, 2010, 10:37:46 AM
Yeah, it's so crappy that speed limit laws are enacted to keep people driving at a safe speed. And it is a proven fact that the faster a car is driven over 55 mph, the lower gas mileage it gets. I don't have the exact numbers offhand, but mileage drops a certain percentage for every mile an hour over 55, due the the effects of wind resistance and aerodynamics.
Whose job is it to monitor gas mileage? IMHO, it should not be anyone other than the driver.
Anyway, gas mileage above 55mph has gotten much better since the early 1970s, and the whole drop in speed only yielded a savings of 0.1%. Not worth it to try to control behavior. Better to set a reasonable limit (i.e. 70mph) and keep traffic flowing.
Really? My Chevy gets 29 mpg when I drive 70-75 mph, and it gets 42 mpg when I drive 55 mph. With all the distracted driving going on, I frankly think that there are enough irresponsible people driving that raising speed limits just adds gas to the fire. Besides, the last thing that we should be doing is increasing carbon emissions these days, if we wanted to consider things in a more selfless manner.
Again, that's up to the driver, not some asinine fool who is chauffeured around from the state legislature. Set a reasonable speed limit like 70mph with a minimum of 50 or 55mph and if you don't want to go that fast, get the fuck off the freeway. Again, your gas mileage is far better than what vehicles used to get with far, far fewer carbon emissions. My car doesn't have much change between 55mph and 70 mph and starts dropping at 75 mph.
Or, are you saying that a gas-powered car can be limited while an emission-less electric car can go whatever speed it feels like? Which is it?
And my car gets the same gas mileage at 75 as it does at 55. It depends on the vehicle.
It's not 1975 anymore.
Quote from: InterstateNG on April 19, 2013, 06:48:21 PM
And my car gets the same gas mileage at 75 as it does at 55. It depends on the vehicle.
It's not 1975 anymore.
To be frank, I find a strong crosswind or strong headwind does far more to the mileage than anything else at most freeway speeds.
This seems relevant
http://www.mpgforspeed.com/
^ I have had trips in which the gas mileage at 75 mph does not agree with the reduction that site calculates I should have - so I second the notion of wind direction being a big factor. If the motivation is to save gas, bump up the gas tax.
I also wonder how many long road trips those who advocate a return to 55 mph take per year.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on April 19, 2013, 05:46:11 PM
Really? My Chevy gets 29 mpg when I drive 70-75 mph, and it gets 42 mpg when I drive 55 mph. With all the distracted driving going on, I frankly think that there are enough irresponsible people driving that raising speed limits just adds gas to the fire. Besides, the last thing that we should be doing is increasing carbon emissions these days, if we wanted to consider things in a more selfless manner.
I will trade gas mileage for getting there faster any day of the week. Especially if it increases carbon emissions, since I don't buy into the Chicken Little "OMG mankind is destroying the planet" pile of steaming (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQ0cqSDODfSh5DE8eD5z68C8l6oOIV4GkWklOh1ktjA0hoLXVuprGM_cg&hash=91cd36978f508180d3f119847bd3420d59678052)
Poking across Illinois on I-64 at the posted speed limit ain't my idea of a good time.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
I also wonder how many long road trips those who advocate a return to 55 mph take per year.
Probably none.
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:18:25 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
I also wonder how many long road trips those who advocate a return to 55 mph take per year.
Probably none.
It's hard to imagine that anyone who does any driving would want a return to 55 mph, especially if they have any intelligence.
I remember what it was like creeping across Kentucky at 55 mph, going to Paducah for a conference. I did not feel comfortable driving over 60 mph. Even when the speed limit increased to 65 mph on interstates, it was still 55 on Kentucky's parkways (which are functionally equivalent) until Mitch McConnell succeeded in getting legislation passed in Congress to allow 65 mph on all four-lane freeways, not just interstates. The increase to 70 mph has made a big difference. For the most part, I feel comfortable driving 75 mph and I can tell a big difference in how long it takes me to get places. A trip to Frankfort that used to take a full two hours can be done in 90 minutes. Louisville and Cincinnati used to be three-hour drives, but no longer.
I can't imagine anyone enjoying going back to 55. Even when I'm taking a road trip just for the heck of it, I don't want to creep along.
Sammy Hagar said it right about the 55mph limit, "what used to take two hours now takes all day."
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
^ I have had trips in which the gas mileage at 75 mph does not agree with the reduction that site calculates I should have - so I second the notion of wind direction being a big factor. If the motivation is to save gas, bump up the gas tax.
Well, obviously the above link is an aggregate, so while your experience may not emulate those results exactly, other vehicles likely perform worse than what's listed above.
Personally, I do notice an increase in fuel consumption at higher speeds. It isn't enough for me to never drive over the speed limit, but sometimes, espescially when I am going to work for evening and night shifts, I will poke along in the right lane of thefreeway at 100-105km/h.
I don't know what effects continuously variable or six and eight speed transmissions will have on gas mileage at higher speeds, but I think the impacts for fuel mileage would be positive.
Southern Illinois freeways are hard to drive at 65. There's such light traffic and long sight lines, upping the speed limit to 70 mph should be a no brainer.
Senate backs plan for 70 mph on tollways, interstate routes (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-legislature-0424-20130424,0,6784664.story)
QuoteThe measure would allow Cook County, the suburban collar counties and two counties near St. Louis to opt out in areas where local officials did not think the higher speed would be appropriate.
Sponsoring Sen. Jim Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove, said the change would bring Illinois in line with the more than 30 states that allow drivers to go 70 or 75 mph.
The bill moved to the House on a 41-6 Senate vote. If signed, the increase to 70 mph would take effect Jan. 1.
^ January 1? Seems excessively long; I thought most other states managed to get the new limit into effect by July 1. They could easily go ahead and make the changes outside of Chicagoland and the Metro East, and hold off a little bit until those counties figure out what limit they will allow.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 19, 2013, 11:11:29 PM
Poking across Illinois on I-64 at the posted speed limit ain't my idea of a good time.
I did it from Grayville to Mount Vernon at 48 mph, having had a turbo hose blow off several times already.
The Illinois Department of Transportation is opposed to raising the speed limit to 70mph.
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1424272457/70-mph-limit-a-threat-to-safety-says-IDOT-secretary (http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1424272457/70-mph-limit-a-threat-to-safety-says-IDOT-secretary)
And the American Automobile Association's also opposed to raising the speed limit in Illinois too.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/04/70-mph-speed-limit-in-illinois-opposed-by-aaa.html (http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/04/70-mph-speed-limit-in-illinois-opposed-by-aaa.html)
And both the AAA and IDiOT can piss off. This is the same IDOT that is posting the morbid total number of highway deaths for the year on every VMS they can get their hands on. ISTHA is simply waiting and seeing what happens. Most folks go 70 already on the tollways, and the state troopers seem to let it go (been past by more than a few while I was doing 70!).
AAA is more an insurance company than anything now hence why I believe they oppose it.
IDiOT? I don't see their justification. Never will.
It's all about the profit from fines and insurance premiums
They better move it up to 70. 65 is too slow. Everyone drives 70 on it anyways. Move it up.
Quote from: US 41 on May 02, 2013, 08:40:39 AM
They better move it up to 70. 65 is too slow. Everyone drives 70 on it anyways. Move it up.
70 would just fit better with the states around Illinois. Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana are all at 70. Only Wisconsin is a 65 holdout. Shoot, even Ohio figured it out finally.
But i doubt Wisconsin will figure it out with all the lobbying being done against it.
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 02, 2013, 02:00:55 PM
But i doubt Wisconsin will figure it out with all the lobbying being done against it.
Wisconsin: The Oregon of the Midwest. All that's missing is the full-service gas stations.
Illinois is in a class all by itself.
Does IDOT employ any actual engineers, or just people from the "speed kills" lobby? Reading that article, I found so many outright lies and a statistic that sounds good but proves nothing.
Note: the statistic I'm talking about is the "70% of states with less safe roads have speed limits of 70 or higher"; note that the overall percentage of states with speed limits of 70 or higher is 74%, so that statistic is essentially meaningless.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2013, 04:00:22 PM
Does IDOT employ any actual engineers, or just people from the "speed kills" lobby? Reading that article, I found so many outright lies and a statistic that sounds good but proves nothing.
Note: the statistic I'm talking about is the "70% of states with less safe roads have speed limits of 70 or higher"; note that the overall percentage of states with speed limits of 70 or higher is 74%, so that statistic is essentially meaningless.
There are days I wonder if IDOT employs engineers or is just a large patronage scheme. :rolleyes:
I'm just a bit sick of their total number of highway deaths this year campaign, usually posted on the VMSs as:
298 DEATHS IN 2013
PLEASE DRIVE SAFELY
DONT DRINK AND DRIVE (or other "safety" message on last two lines)
I really don't give a shit how many traffic deaths there have been this year as it is a meaningless number when detached from the causes of the accidents and where the accidents occur.
The woman in charge of IDOT, who expressed the anti-70 sentiment is a typical Chicago political hack who obtained her job by patronage and personal connections. She knows no more about highway engineering or the physics of speed/acceleration than your average 3 year old guinea pig. Nor should her opinion be worth any more than that of the aforementioned rodent. She's a hack.
The legislature (which has the actual authority) seems more amenable to the reality of how people actually drive. Which is a refreshing change, because they're usually on the wrong side of any given issue.
^^ The head of the Division of Highways is a Professional Engineer. Ann Schneider, head of IDOT, is not a Professional Engineer. :verymad: IMHO, only a PE should ever be head of IDOT, or any other similar agency in this state or any other state in the US. Consider this PE slightly biased in that regard.
Quote from: Brandon on May 02, 2013, 02:22:16 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 02, 2013, 02:00:55 PM
But i doubt Wisconsin will figure it out with all the lobbying being done against it.
Wisconsin: The Oregon of the Midwest. All that's missing is the full-service gas stations.
Illinois is in a class all by itself.
Thank you for the sig quote :-D
Quote from: Brandon on May 02, 2013, 02:22:16 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 02, 2013, 02:00:55 PM
But i doubt Wisconsin will figure it out with all the lobbying being done against it.
Wisconsin: The Oregon of the Midwest. All that's missing is the full-service gas stations.
Illinois is in a class all by itself.
Isn't Oregon more gung-ho about actually enforcing its laws than Illinois, though? I've driven right past police officers on the Interstate in Illinois (65 mph limit) while going 78 more than once without being pulled over. On Route 47 between Dwight and Gibson City (55 mph limit), I once passed by a cop while going 70 without being pulled over. I even passed by a cop on a county road in southern Illinois (55 mph limit) in a company box truck while going 66 mph; he flashed his brake lights and kept on going. Shoot, I've even
overtaken a police car in the box truck while going about 7 over with no ill result.
^^ The Wisconsin reference is more appropriate here too as they are also gung-ho on speed limit enforcement.
Quote from: kphoger on May 02, 2013, 07:55:56 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 02, 2013, 02:22:16 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 02, 2013, 02:00:55 PM
But i doubt Wisconsin will figure it out with all the lobbying being done against it.
Wisconsin: The Oregon of the Midwest. All that's missing is the full-service gas stations.
Illinois is in a class all by itself.
Isn't Oregon more gung-ho about actually enforcing its laws than Illinois, though? I've driven right past police officers on the Interstate in Illinois (65 mph limit) while going 78 more than once without being pulled over. On Route 47 between Dwight and Gibson City (55 mph limit), I once passed by a cop while going 70 without being pulled over. I even passed by a cop on a county road in southern Illinois (55 mph limit) in a company box truck while going 66 mph; he flashed his brake lights and kept on going. Shoot, I've even overtaken a police car in the box truck while going about 7 over with no ill result.
As I said, Illinois is in a class all by itself. :-D
Quote from: Brandon on May 02, 2013, 04:04:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2013, 04:00:22 PM
Does IDOT employ any actual engineers, or just people from the "speed kills" lobby? Reading that article, I found so many outright lies and a statistic that sounds good but proves nothing.
Note: the statistic I'm talking about is the "70% of states with less safe roads have speed limits of 70 or higher"; note that the overall percentage of states with speed limits of 70 or higher is 74%, so that statistic is essentially meaningless.
There are days I wonder if IDOT employs engineers or is just a large patronage scheme. :rolleyes:
I'm just a bit sick of their total number of highway deaths this year campaign, usually posted on the VMSs as:
298 DEATHS IN 2013
PLEASE DRIVE SAFELY
DONT DRINK AND DRIVE (or other "safety" message on last two lines)
I really don't give a shit how many traffic deaths there have been this year as it is a meaningless number when detached from the causes of the accidents and where the accidents occur.
I agree. All I need to see on the VMS signs are xx min to ____ and the Amber Alerts that pop up from time to time. The rest of it they can do away with. BTW, this morning, the count was at 311.
They need to pass chicagoland laws & downstate laws. Illinois could easily have speed limits of 70-75, south of I-70. As far as those sections of I-64 in Wayne & White Counties just b-4 entering Indiana, the State Police ticket regularly for 71 in a 65. The list of ticketing is reported in the local paper.
Based on the last page discussions about Illinois and Wisconsin I am curious: I am taking a trip up to Wisconsin this Memorial Day weekend, what should I be doing for speed there? I've driven enough in the Chicago area to know that 70 is acceptable, but I have not had much experience north of there. Interesting to to here about Wisconsin as the "Oregon of the Midwest." Is that because of the speed limits being low, the politics, both and/or more?
I'd love to see VMS signs post current storm warnings when warranted (i.e. TORNADO WARNING FOR AREA -- USE CAUTION). Some places may already do, but I've never seen them.
Quote from: tdindy88 on May 03, 2013, 06:16:17 PM
Based on the last page discussions about Illinois and Wisconsin I am curious: I am taking a trip up to Wisconsin this Memorial Day weekend, what should I be doing for speed there? I've driven enough in the Chicago area to know that 70 is acceptable, but I have not had much experience north of there. Interesting to to here about Wisconsin as the "Oregon of the Midwest." Is that because of the speed limits being low, the politics, both and/or more?
With traffic, which is usually 70. I go 70 by Wisconsin state troopers all the time and haven't been pulled over once.
Quote from: dirtroad66 on May 03, 2013, 06:02:01 PM
They need to pass chicagoland laws & downstate laws. Illinois could easily have speed limits of 70-75, south of I-70. As far as those sections of I-64 in Wayne & White Counties just b-4 entering Indiana, the State Police ticket regularly for 71 in a 65. The list of ticketing is reported in the local paper.
Hell, they could have one law for SW of the Will/Cook Line, and one law of NE of it.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 03, 2013, 06:17:56 PM
I'd love to see VMS signs post current storm warnings when warranted (i.e. TORNADO WARNING FOR AREA -- USE CAUTION). Some places may already do, but I've never seen them.
Great idea! :clap: I've never seen it done, but you'd think it would
n't be hard to do.
Quote from: dirtroad66 on May 03, 2013, 06:02:01 PM
They need to pass chicagoland laws & downstate laws. Illinois could easily have speed limits of 70-75, south of I-70. As far as those sections of I-64 in Wayne & White Counties just b-4 entering Indiana, the State Police ticket regularly for 71 in a 65. The list of ticketing is reported in the local paper.
Interestingly, I-64 in Wayne County is the only location I know of where one of our drivers was pulled over for speeding. And he was pulled over for going over the
truck limit of 55 mph!
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 03, 2013, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on May 03, 2013, 06:16:17 PM
Based on the last page discussions about Illinois and Wisconsin I am curious: I am taking a trip up to Wisconsin this Memorial Day weekend, what should I be doing for speed there? I've driven enough in the Chicago area to know that 70 is acceptable, but I have not had much experience north of there. Interesting to to here about Wisconsin as the "Oregon of the Midwest." Is that because of the speed limits being low, the politics, both and/or more?
With traffic, which is usually 70. I go 70 by Wisconsin state troopers all the time and haven't been pulled over once.
I usually drive about 70 as well, and I get passed by just as many people as I pass. Keep it in the 5-7 over range and you'll be fine. State troopers and sheriffs' deputies are usually after the excessive speeders. I did get pulled over once for doing 72 in a 65 zone once, but was just given a warning.
Quote from: theline on May 03, 2013, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 03, 2013, 06:17:56 PM
I'd love to see VMS signs post current storm warnings when warranted (i.e. TORNADO WARNING FOR AREA -- USE CAUTION). Some places may already do, but I've never seen them.
Great idea! :clap: I've never seen it done, but you'd think it would be hard to do.
Bear with me. I going to put my meteorology background to use on this response.
I like the idea of using the VMS signs for severe weather as well but one problem that I can see is the high false alarm rate for tornado warnings. This is because there are actually 3 different types of warnings.
The 1st one is a Doppler Radar Indicated Tornado Warning. This is the most common type of tornado warning and this occurs when the radar has pick up a tornadic signature (usually radar gate to gate shear of 90+ mph or a BWER [Bounded Weak Echo Region]). Because the radar is looking for these kind of signatures, this is what causes the most false alarms for tornado warnings. Just because the radar "sees" a signature does not mean that there is a tornado on the ground at that time. This is why spotters and chasers are vital to the NWS.
The 2nd one is a Spotter Indicated Tornado Warning. This is when someone has reported seeing a tornado in a specific spot. The NWS office will then compare the report with what they see on radar and issue the warning. While this is not as big a false alarm rate, one of the biggest problems is people who are not trained to actually see what they are seeing as being a rotating wall cloud or a tornado. For example, a yahoo chaser with no training could report a cold air funnel or a dust devil as a tornado because the look of it is very similar to a tornado. In reality, a cold air funnel is nothing but sinking air and is not a threat for damage. A dust devil is just high localized winds (usually about 40 to 60 mph) that kick up dust when it has been very dry. If it is not attached to the base of the cloud, it is not tornadic at all. Now you can get some dust devils that stretch very tall and last for a couple minutes but those are more like land spouts that again are not attached to the base of the cloud but can do some wind damage. These are what we call in the chasing community sheriffnadoes. Believe it or not, about half of the police and fire officers are not trained as spotters especially in the more rural areas.
The 3rd one is relatively new in the lexicon at the NWS but is to be taken very seriously. If you see a warning with the words "Particularly Dangerous Situation". This means that a very large violent tornado has been confirmed by spotters that has already produced damage to an area. It can also sometimes use the words "Tornado Emergency". These warnings were used in events such as the F5 in Moore OK in 1999, the 2007 F5 in Greensburg KS, and the F4 that hit Tuscaloosa AL in 2011.
One thing that I certainly would do with the VMS signs as it pertains to severe weather though is when the SPC Convective Outlook for Day 1 has at a minimum a Moderate Risk and/or a High Risk for the area, post that alert to drivers. I would think at the very least if the driver is aware of the potential in the area, that would help.
BTW, here is what an example of the Day 1 Convective Outlook looks like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SPC_severe_outlook_04072006.png
This was April 7, 2006 which had an outbreak of 74 tornadoes over a 3 day period in 13 states.
This is the actual storm reports map for that day. Tornadoes are in red. Damaging wind is in blue. And damaging hail (3/4 of inch or bigger) is in green.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/060407_rpts.html
Sorry to go off on a tangent there.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 03, 2013, 06:17:56 PM
I'd love to see VMS signs post current storm warnings when warranted (i.e. TORNADO WARNING FOR AREA -- USE CAUTION). Some places may already do, but I've never seen them.
MoDOT did once along I-270 for the New Years Eve tornado that hit Sunset Hills - I think it was 'Tornado Warning Tune to local media' or some similar message.
As for possibly exempting the Chicagoland counties from going to 70 mph, it seems that traffic on the Tri-State generally moves faster than on the interstates outside of Chicagoland. I would love to see what the 85th percentile speed is on I-94 in Lake County in the off peak hours.
Hallej-fricking-lulliah! :cheers: :thumbsup: :cool: :biggrin:
Illinois 70 mph highway speed limit bill sent to governor (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-illinois-70-mph-highway-speed-limit-bill-sent-to-governor-20130522,0,123901.story)
QuoteThe Illinois House today sent Gov. Pat Quinn legislation that would raise the speed limit on non-urban interstate highways from 65 mph to 70 mph.
QuoteA Quinn veto may not prove fatal, however.
The House vote on Wednesday was 85-30, and 71 lawmakers would be needed to overrule Quinn there. Last month, the Senate approved the measure 41-6, with 30 senators needed to override a veto.
Illinois is one of 16 states still stuck in the 1980s with a 65 mph freeway/tollway limit.
Yeah and PA is stuck in the 80's too and hell will freeze over if they raise the limit to 70, one reason why I LOVE living in TN!
I've been doing 70 in Chicagoland and 75 in the rural areas since I began driving, just because it seems I'll get driven off the road if I dare do 55-60. Night driving I usually back off to 65 in city and 70 in farms since it's dark, but still people go by doing 80-90 (EVEN IN CONSTRUCTION ZONES :banghead: :banghead: )
Quote from: ET21 on May 23, 2013, 05:58:21 PM
I've been doing 70 in Chicagoland and 75 in the rural areas since I began driving, just because it seems I'll get driven off the road if I dare do 55-60. Night driving I usually back off to 65 in city and 70 in farms since it's dark, but still people go by doing 80-90 (EVEN IN CONSTRUCTION ZONES :banghead: :banghead: )
With the approval and likely signing by Quinn to raise the speed limit to 70, this would actually give the ISP, IMO, a reason to crack down on people who do more than 75 in a 65 zone. Personally, I hope they do it. There is no reason why anyone needs to do more than 75 in Illinois. Period.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 02, 2013, 06:59:38 PM
There is no reason why anyone needs to do more than 75 in Illinois. Period.
Err?? Last time I was in Illinois, I drove I-80 all the way across (starting in the Michigan dunes), and seldom dropped below 80 mph. Did I have a reason? Yes: we had an 800-mile drive to do that day, and we have two small children. Time was of the essence. We were going just barely above the average flow of traffic. Didn't seem all that unreasonable at all. I've hardly ever driven under 75 mph on the Interstates in Illinois, especially outside the Chicago area; hardly anyone I knew well while living downstate drove under 70.
The tollways need to be 65 or higher. And the other interstates in the city can be as high as 60. Make I-290 65 from at least I-294 to I-90. With IL-53 65 as well.
Last night I-90 / I-94 was open and I was able to do 65 easy. from the city (downtown) out to des plaines IL in about 30 min.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 02, 2013, 06:59:38 PMThere is no reason why anyone needs to do more than 75 in Illinois. Period.
Obviously you have never driven I-57 in the southern part of the state, I-24 or I-64.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2013, 12:03:20 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 02, 2013, 06:59:38 PMThere is no reason why anyone needs to do more than 75 in Illinois. Period.
Obviously you have never driven I-57 in the southern part of the state, I-24 or I-64.
Actually I have on several occasions when going to Little Rock, Nashville or Memphis. 75 is plenty fast in Illinois.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2013, 12:03:20 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 02, 2013, 06:59:38 PMThere is no reason why anyone needs to do more than 75 in Illinois. Period.
Obviously you have never driven I-57 in the southern part of the state, I-24 or I-64.
Actually I have on several occasions when going to Little Rock, Nashville or Memphis. 75 is plenty fast in Illinois.
Sure, 70 would suit IL just fine; 75 would be overkill.
I've driven both 57 and 64... they definitely can be safely handled at 80. probably even 90.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
Actually I have on several occasions when going to Little Rock, Nashville or Memphis. 75 is plenty fast in Illinois.
How come? Let me guess...it's the speed you feel comfortable with, right? So everyone else should adhere to it as well?
Quote from: Brandon on May 22, 2013, 05:09:17 PM
Illinois 70 mph highway speed limit bill sent to governor (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-illinois-70-mph-highway-speed-limit-bill-sent-to-governor-20130522,0,123901.story)
QuoteThe Illinois House today sent Gov. Pat Quinn legislation that would raise the speed limit on non-urban interstate highways from 65 mph to 70 mph.
QuoteA Quinn veto may not prove fatal, however.
The House vote on Wednesday was 85-30, and 71 lawmakers would be needed to overrule Quinn there. Last month, the Senate approved the measure 41-6, with 30 senators needed to override a veto.
Illinois is one of 16 states still stuck in the 1980s with a 65 mph freeway/tollway limit.
Not NJ. They didn't raise their speed limit to 65 until 1997! :-) So we're just stuck in the 90's!!
I don't think Hawaii has 65 anywhere. 60, IIRC.
Jeffandnicole, Actually I am quite fine/comfortable with driving at 85. I have done that in Montana.
There are a couple reasons that 75 mph is plenty enough for Illinois. First, with Illinois being one of the largest states in pop but average in land area, density of cars on the highway is a big issue. While the larger cities in that part of the state barely break 30,000, I-57 in particular is the main north-south route that is heavily used by trucks to avoid going through St Louis which can be a bitch often enough.
Secondly, the parts of 57, 24, and 64 (not so much with 64) that were mentioned by HB Elkins are in a forested (Shawnee National Forest) and hilly area of the state. Even in daylight, you get critters that try to run over the road often down there.
And lastly, speaking as someone who drives professionally, you have to account for the mentality of the average Illinois driver, especially the 7 collar counties. The mentality is that if the speed limit is 55 on the expressway, you can go 65-70 without being pulled over and given a ticket. In 65 zones, that jumps to 75. If you go any higher than 70, which the mentality would be doing 75-80, you are asking for trouble. I am confident in my abilities as a driver at a high speed. I am not confident with others. Frankly, I wish half the people in this state didn't have a license with how reckless they drive especially on expressways. I have no patience for stupid/reckless drivers and I do report them to the proper police. To me a reckless driver is just as bad as a drunk driver.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 02:25:12 PM
If you go any higher than 70, which the mentality would be doing 75-80, you are asking for trouble.
Except studies have proven this to be false. People naturally drive at the speed they are comfortable at. If you increase the speed limit to that level, they won't magically drive faster "just because". In fact, when Michigan increased many speed limits from 55 to 70, the average speed on those roads went DOWN.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 02:25:12 PMThe mentality is that if the speed limit is 55 on the expressway, you can go 65-70 without being pulled over and given a ticket. In 65 zones, that jumps to 75. If you go any higher than 70, which the mentality would be doing 75-80, you are asking for trouble.
Urban legend. (https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/423049_245519112242541_895540880_n.png) The mentality is that 65-72 is what is most comfortable for most people on most freeways.
The only thing that increases with an increase in the speed limit...is compliance with the speed limit. This of course means fewer tickets issued, thus less revenue for government agencies, and less profit for insurance companies...both of whom, as such, aggressively push propaganda campaigns to make you believe that everyone wants to exceed the speed limit by a certain amount, regardless of what said speed limit is.
Crazy Volvo Guy, :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the normal cruising speed for half the drivers on the East-West Tollway in the suburbs can possibly be the limit of what is safe on highways like I-24 to Kentucky (5 exits in 36 miles), I-64 to Indiana (6 exits in 51 miles), and I-64 to O'Fallon (7 exits in 50 miles).
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 02:25:12 PM
Secondly, the parts of 57, 24, and 64 (not so much with 64) that were mentioned by HB Elkins are in a forested (Shawnee National Forest) and hilly area of the state. Even in daylight, you get critters that try to run over the road often down there.
It doesn't take a forested area to have critters. I grew up in western Kansas, where they've barely even heard of trees, and there were deer darting out into the highway all the time. Good luck finding a state where animals don't cross the road.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 02:25:12 PM
And lastly, speaking as someone who drives professionally, you have to account for the mentality of the average Illinois driver, especially the 7 collar counties. The mentality is that if the speed limit is 55 on the expressway, you can go 65-70 without being pulled over and given a ticket. In 65 zones, that jumps to 75. If you go any higher than 70, which the mentality would be doing 75-80, you are asking for trouble. I am confident in my abilities as a driver at a high speed. I am not confident with others. Frankly, I wish half the people in this state didn't have a license with how reckless they drive especially on expressways. I have no patience for stupid/reckless drivers and I do report them to the proper police. To me a reckless driver is just as bad as a drunk driver.
In my experience there, which included driving a box truck approximately 300 miles in southern Illinois at least four days a week for more than a year, the problem drivers quite rarely had Illinois plates. The definite majority of poor drivers on downstate Interstates have tags from the southern states–Mississippi, especially. Their poor behavior is usually driving too slowly and erratically, not driving too fast. The very few super-speed demons out there don't give a lick what the speed limit is anyway; they're going to drive 95 no matter what, and the same is true on the urban expressways.
But poor driver behavior should not, IMO, be a reason to make a speed limit this or that number.
That's fine if my opinions are in the minority on this but IMO those are still issues that need to be addressed to a given area when you decide to change the speed limit.
Still no signature or veto from Quinn yet.
I wonder if IDOT and ISTHA will revise their highway standards for 2014 assuming the increase is approved right away or hold off, see if the increase is approved, and then hold off on any definite highway standard until the 2015 set? I thinking there would at least be a modification to the standard for transitioning into a construction zone.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 23, 2013, 10:57:09 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 20, 2013, 02:25:12 PMThe mentality is that if the speed limit is 55 on the expressway, you can go 65-70 without being pulled over and given a ticket. In 65 zones, that jumps to 75. If you go any higher than 70, which the mentality would be doing 75-80, you are asking for trouble.
Urban legend. (https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/423049_245519112242541_895540880_n.png) The mentality is that 65-72 is what is most comfortable for most people on most freeways.
There's my speed limits on any Interstate. Like I said though, I'll push to 75 when necessary (though I got comfortable with 80-90 mph, the speed at which my roommate drove this past Saturday)
^^ I do wish Governor Jello would get his ass in gear and sign the damn bill already. He's doing the medical marijuana bill, why the fuck not something that helps more of the population? Even Darth Mike and Darth John could see the sense in it.
Quote from: Brandon on July 31, 2013, 09:06:11 PM
^^ I do wish Governor Jello would get his ass in gear and sign the damn bill already. He's doing the medical marijuana bill, why the fuck not something that helps more of the population? Even Darth Mike and Darth John could see the sense in it.
Please, he has to hide the payrolls of everyone until the pension is redone :-D :-D :rolleyes:
You could base a Comedy Central TV show off of this "government"
Quote from: ET21 on July 31, 2013, 09:10:27 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 31, 2013, 09:06:11 PM
^^ I do wish Governor Jello would get his ass in gear and sign the damn bill already. He's doing the medical marijuana bill, why the fuck not something that helps more of the population? Even Darth Mike and Darth John could see the sense in it.
Please, he has to hide the payrolls of everyone until the pension is redone :-D :-D :rolleyes:
You could base a Comedy Central TV show off of this "government"
Yeah, "Governor Jello and the Sith Lords". :ded:
^^^ Per the Illinois constitution: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con4.htm
Relevant parts:
QuoteSECTION 9. VETO PROCEDURE
(a) Every bill passed by the General Assembly shall be
presented to the Governor within 30 calendar days after its
passage. The foregoing requirement shall be judicially
enforceable. If the Governor approves the bill, he shall sign
it and it shall become law.
(b) If the Governor does not approve the bill, he shall
veto it by returning it with his objections to the house in
which it originated. Any bill not so returned by the Governor
within 60 calendar days after it is presented to him shall
become law. If recess or adjournment of the General Assembly
prevents the return of a bill, the bill and the Governor's
objections shall be filed with the Secretary of State within
such 60 calendar days. The Secretary of State shall return
the bill and objections to the originating house promptly
upon the next meeting of the same General Assembly at which
the bill can be considered.
Looks like the deadline to decide has to be very near now.
If it's the 60 day rule, 9 days over :-/
Quote from: ET21 on July 31, 2013, 09:23:05 PM
If it's the 60 day rule, 9 days over :-/
Per this site, it would be 60 days on August 19:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2356&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=73962
Today's the day.
Quinn will decide today, but he hasn't given any indication which way he'll go.
I did read an article stating that the votes in the House and Senate are veto-proof. Does that mean another round of votes could override his veto?
Either way, this is an important day for this rule.
Governor Jello finally signs the law. No idea nor reason given as to why it took so flipping long.
Quinn signs 70 mph speed limit law for Illinois (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-quinn-signs-70-mph-speed-limit-law-for-illinois-20130819,0,265971.story)
QuoteThe change will go into effect on Jan. 1. Illinois is among 16 states with a maximum 65 mph limit. Another 34 states have a maximum speed limit of 70 mph or more.
Quote"I'm very pleased that he saw fit to sign it," said sponsoring Sen. Jim Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove. "I believe that this is one small step to help bring Illinois into the 21st century along with most of the other states in this country that have speed limits of 70 or higher."
:cheers: :thumbsup: :bigass: :love:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :clap: :clap: :clap:
It's about damned time. Now it's simply a matter of where the zones begin and end.
I can theorize that the Reagan and Addams Tollways will be the only tollways to carry 70 mph. Otherwise, I like to see how they map it out. January 1 is a lot sooner than we think.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_a0a49f82-08e2-11e3-bb89-0019bb2963f4.html
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 19, 2013, 04:26:48 PM
It's about damned time. Now it's simply a matter of where the zones begin and end.
I can theorize that the Reagan and Addams Tollways will be the only tollways to carry 70 mph. Otherwise, I like to see how they map it out. January 1 is a lot sooner than we think.
Given that it takes local ordinance in Cook, DuPage, McHenry, Kane, Lake, Will, Madison, and St Clair Counties to keep it at 65 instead of 70, I suspect we'll see I-355 at 70 as well in Will County. The Will County Board is not opposed to the 70 mph speed limit. We'll see what happens in the other counties.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2013, 04:26:57 PM
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_a0a49f82-08e2-11e3-bb89-0019bb2963f4.html
And thus Wisconsin will then enter the 21st Century.
Now if only Oregon will get on board...
Very happy to read this, will make trips my to the QC in the future much more enjoyable!
Will County is pro-70? That's cool.
My main worry is the section of I-80 from just west of I-355 to Illinois 43 (the zone that is currently 65 mph right now). Do you think it can handle 70 mph traffic? I've driven that section on days where the traffic volume was quite high.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 19, 2013, 05:58:52 PM
Will County is pro-70? That's cool.
My main worry is the section of I-80 from just west of I-355 to Illinois 43 (the zone that is currently 65 mph right now). Do you think it can handle 70 mph traffic? I've driven that section on days where the traffic volume was quite high.
I read the bill, and I'm not sure why the law wasn't written to explicitly give IDOT the power to keep those at 65 mph if needed. I wouldn't call that stretch near Joilet a "rural freeway".
Here in Indiana when the limit to 70 mph was raised areas like Greenwood & Lafayette on I-65 (larger suburban/moderate-sized urban areas, essentially) still stayed at 65 mph.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 19, 2013, 05:58:52 PM
Will County is pro-70? That's cool.
My main worry is the section of I-80 from just west of I-355 to Illinois 43 (the zone that is currently 65 mph right now). Do you think it can handle 70 mph traffic? I've driven that section on days where the traffic volume was quite high.
Why not? Most folks already go 70-75 in that stretch anyway. I'd be hard pressed to find a zone where most drivers are not already doing 70, even in the 55 zones. Might as well take a cue from MDOT and post it at 70.
All of I-294, I-90 (toll parts), I-94 (toll parts), I-355 with parts of I-290 needs to be 65/70.
Quote from: Brandon on August 19, 2013, 07:21:08 PMMight as well take a cue from MDOT and post it at 70.
This.
Quote from: Brandon on August 19, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
The Will County Board is not opposed to the 70 mph speed limit. We'll see what happens in the other counties.
Doesn't mean IDOT will go along with the 70 mph limit in the county.
A partial list of my guesses on areas where IDOT will keep the 65 mph limit
I-39* Baxter Road (Exit 115) to I-90
* Exit 2 to I-55
I-55* South of I-70/I-270 at Troy
* Somewhere around milemarker 77 to somewhere near the Sherman Exit (105)
* The southern I-74 interchange to around milemarker 168
* Probably north of Arsenal Road, if D-1 even allows I-55 to be posted at 70
I-57* Around milemarker 50 to milemarker 55 (through Marion)
* Between the two I-64 interchanges
* Between the two I-70 interchanges
* Milemarker 230 to 240 through Champaign
* Milemarker 307 to 317 through Kankakee
* North of Exit 335
I-64* West of Exit 23 (IL 4)
* From the northern I-57 interchange to milemarker 81
I-72* Around milemarker 90 to Exit 104 through Springfield
* Around Exit 133 to milemarker 145 around Decatur
* East of milemarker 181
^^ IDOT has more sissy, whiny, ninnies than any other DOT in the Midwest. They really really need to take a clue from the DOTs around them.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 19, 2013, 11:17:37 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 19, 2013, 04:39:24 PM
The Will County Board is not opposed to the 70 mph speed limit. We'll see what happens in the other counties.
Doesn't mean IDOT will go along with the 70 mph limit in the county.
A partial list of my guesses on areas where IDOT will keep the 65 mph limit
I-39
* Baxter Road (Exit 115) to I-90
This would make sense. This stretch of road, mainly with the US-20 Rockford Bypass concurrency (with traffic-slowing merge/exit ramps) is a mess. Traffic is often at 50-60mph when it gets congested. It's possible to get to 70mph, but 9 times out of 10 it's not safe.
The rest of my guesses for areas IDOT will keep under 70:
I-74
* West of milemarker 6 - though I wouldn't be surprised if it stays 65 until beyond the cloverleaf with I-80.
* Around milemarker 85 to around milemarker 104 in the Peoria area
* Around Exit 125 to milemarker 137 around Blormal
* Around milemaker 175 to milemarker 186 in the Chambana area
* East of Exit 210 to the Indiana border
I-80
* Maybe west of milemarker 10
* Possibly milemarker 72 to Exit 81 in the Lasalle - Peru area
* East of Exit 122
I-88
* West of milemarker 3
I-155
* North of milemarker 26
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 20, 2013, 06:52:36 PM
The rest of my guesses for areas IDOT will keep under 70:
I-74
* West of milemarker 6 - though I wouldn't be surprised if it stays 65 until beyond the cloverleaf with I-80.
I-80
* Maybe west of milemarker 10
I-88
* West of milemarker 3
I can see Illinois taking Iowa's lead in the QC and keeping all of the Interstates around (which also includes 280 in its entirety) at 65.
Revive, I would slightly adjust those zones a bit but agree with it for the most part. These would be my guesses based on the current "transition zones" or logical points.
The stretches below are not 70 mph zone:
I-39 from Illinois 71 to I-80 (La Salle)
I-39 from Baxter Rd to Wisconsin State Line (Rockford)
I-55 from Missouri State Line to I-70 East/270 (E St Louis)
I-55 from Toronto Rd to Business I-55 Peoria Rd (Springfield)
I-55 from Shirley Rd to Business I-55 (North Jct) (Bloomington)
I-55 from Arsenal Rd to US 41 Lake Shore Dr (Chicago/Joliet)
I-57 from Curtis Rd to Olympian Dr (Champaign)
I-57 from US 45/52 to Illinois 50 (Kankakee)
I-57 from US 30 to I-94 (Chicago)
I-64 from Missouri State Line to US 50 East/Illinois 158 (E St Louis)
I-70 from Missouri State Line to I-55/270 (E St Louis)
I-72 from Wabash Ave to Mechanicsburg Rd (Springfield)
I-72 from US 51 South/US 36 East to Illinois 48 (Decatur)
I-72 Spur from I-57 to Champaign
I-74 from Iowa State Line to I-80/280 (Quad Cities)
I-74 from I-474 to Morton Ave (Peoria)
I-74 from US 150 Mitsubishi Pkwy to US 51 South/Business US 51 (Bloomington)
I-74 from I-57 to Illinois 130 (Champaign)
I-74 from US 150 Main St to Indiana State Line (Danville)
I-80 from Iowa State Line to I-74/280 (Quad Cities)
I-80 from Illinois 89 to Illinois 178 (La Salle/Peru)
I-80 from I-55 to US 30 (Joliet)
I-80 from I-57 to Indiana State Line (Chicago Suburbs)
I-88 from I-80 to Illinois 92 East (Quad Cities)
I-88 from Illinois 56 West to I-290/294 (Aurora/Naperville/Chicago Suburbs)
I-90 from Wisconsin State Line to Genoa Rd (Rockford)
I-90 from Randall Rd to Indiana State Line (Elgin/Chicago)
I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana State Line (Chicago)
3dis zones:
I-155 - 70 mph entire length
I-172 - 70 or 65 mph entire length
I-180 - 65 mph entire length
I-190 - 55 mph east of US 12/45 Mannheim Rd
I-190 - 35 mph west of US 12/45 Mannheim Rd
I-255 - 65 mph entire length
I-270 - 65 mph entire length
I-280 - 65 mph entire length
I-294 - 65 mph north of US 14 Dempster St
I-294 - 55 mph from US 14 Dempster St to Illinois 50/83 Cicero Ave/127th St
I-294 - 65 mph south of Illinois 50/83 Cicero Ave/127th St
I-355 - 55 mph north of I-55
I-355 - 65 mph from I-55 to Illinois 7 159th St
I-355 - 70 mph south of Illinois 7 159th St
I-474 - 65 mph
I-294 can be 65 all the way as well as I-88 Illinois 56 West to I-290/294. Both are at least 4 lanes each way.
I-355 maybe all toll parts (but even the free part can be 65) as well I-290 at least I-355 to I-290. I-90 65 I-294 to Elgin.
all of I-94 (tri state tollway) 65 and parts can be 70 if WI goes 70 as well.
I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana State Line??? (Chicago)??? That should be Illinois 120 to WI state line (gurnee)? 70? or just toll to WI state line 70
Here's my question: does the new 70 bill allow speed zone alterations across the board? Just curious.
I personally think the tollways will stay where they are. Maybe make 60 mph zones for the entire Tri-State Tollway, and the Jane Addams Tollway from I-290 to Randall Road. However, the only speed changes I would deem necessary are on the portion of the Addams from Randall Road to the Cherry Valley Interchange (when construction is complete) and the Reagan Tollway from Illinois 56 to I-80 near the QC.
In my opinion, whether or not I-355 gets a 70 mph speed zone is contingent on whether or not the portion of I-80 from east of Maple Road (US 30) to just before I-57 gets a 70 zone. It's doable, but difficult during peak traffic times (based on my experiences; your mileage may vary).
294 and 88 can be 65-70 mph, people are already pushing 90 mph on them anyways
Quote from: ET21 on August 22, 2013, 12:29:17 PM
294 and 88 can be 65-70 mph, people are already pushing 90 mph on them anyways
Just because there are idiots on the road who like to drive at high speeds in less than ideal conditions (which, sadly, is the majority of drivers who use these roads), doesn't mean the state should cater to them. Upping the speed limits on these roads to an even 60 is good enough. I'm willing to be bet Cook, Dupage, and Lake Counties are willing to keep things as they are, and I don't blame them.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 22, 2013, 01:38:14 PM
there are idiots on the road who like to drive at high speeds in less than ideal conditions
this is why "too fast for conditions" should be enforced much more than an arbitrary number. I say put the speed limit to 80, note that this applies WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT (I believe the NJTP has that additional verbiage on their speed limit signs to this day), and if you're doing 75 in the snow, have someone pull your ass over.
but if it's a clear sunny Sunday morning and there's hardly anyone on the road, 80 might just very well be safe.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 22, 2013, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: ET21 on August 22, 2013, 12:29:17 PM
294 and 88 can be 65-70 mph, people are already pushing 90 mph on them anyways
Just because there are idiots on the road who like to drive at high speeds in less than ideal conditions (which, sadly, is the majority of drivers who use these roads), doesn't mean the state should cater to them. Upping the speed limits on these roads to an even 60 is good enough. I'm willing to be bet Cook, Dupage, and Lake Counties are willing to keep things as they are, and I don't blame them.
No. The Tri-State and Northwest Tollways can handle 70 mph very well. The exits are far enough apart, and the sight lines for 70 mph are very good. Most folks already go 65-75 mph on both as it is, and it is well known that drivers tend to drive the road at a safe speed regardless of the whims of a legislature's posted speed limit.
IMHO, the only zones that should be less than 70 mph in the state are:
I-55/70: Missouri to Exit 4
I-55: Exit 290 to LSD
I-74: Iowa to Exit 5 (I-280)
I-74: Exit 87 to Exit 99 (I-474 at both ends)
I-80: Exit 130 to Exit 134
I-90: Exit 78 (I-190) to Exit 59A (Chicago Skyway)
I-94: Exit 29 (Edens Spur) to Exit 65
I-190: Entire length
I-290: Exit 12 to the Circle
I would also sign the express lanes of both the Ryan and the Kennedy at 70 mph. Anything more than this is asinine, backwards, and reactionary, IMHO. IDOT should take a clue (actually several clues) from MDOT and do as MDOT has done with the freeways in many cities from Benton Harbor to Detroit and Ann Arbor to Grand Rapids and maintain 70 mph unless there is a design issue.
Heh. The Nationals' TV commentators (Bob Carpenter and F.P. Santangelo) were just talking about the speed limit increase after a Cub pitcher threw a 57-mph curveball to Jayson Werth.
Quote from: Brandon on August 19, 2013, 04:41:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 19, 2013, 04:26:57 PM
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_a0a49f82-08e2-11e3-bb89-0019bb2963f4.html
And thus Wisconsin might enter the 21st Century.
Now if only Oregon will get on board...
The Senate and Walker aren't so eager to follow the Assembly's footsteps. The story indicates both think it's not important
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 21, 2013, 09:16:49 PM
I-294 can be 65 all the way as well as I-88 Illinois 56 West to I-290/294. Both are at least 4 lanes each way.
I-355 maybe all toll parts (but even the free part can be 65) as well I-290 at least I-355 to I-290. I-90 65 I-294 to Elgin.
all of I-94 (tri state tollway) 65 and parts can be 70 if WI goes 70 as well.
I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana State Line??? (Chicago)??? That should be Illinois 120 to WI state line (gurnee)? 70? or just toll to WI state line 70
No Joe. I did mean I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana as a section that would not be 70, IMO because that would include the Edens, Kennedy, Ryan, Ford, and Borman. No way would they up the speed limit on I-94 in the Chicago city limits.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 28, 2013, 11:50:18 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 21, 2013, 09:16:49 PM
I-294 can be 65 all the way as well as I-88 Illinois 56 West to I-290/294. Both are at least 4 lanes each way.
I-355 maybe all toll parts (but even the free part can be 65) as well I-290 at least I-355 to I-290. I-90 65 I-294 to Elgin.
all of I-94 (tri state tollway) 65 and parts can be 70 if WI goes 70 as well.
I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana State Line??? (Chicago)??? That should be Illinois 120 to WI state line (gurnee)? 70? or just toll to WI state line 70
No Joe. I did mean I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana as a section that would not be 70, IMO because that would include the Edens, Kennedy, Ryan, Ford, and Borman. No way would they up the speed limit on I-94 in the Chicago city limits.
Yea, that would kibosh Chicago's potential plans for placing a speed camera over each lane of the Kennedy at several locations 'in' from the Edens split.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 12:04:04 AM
Yea, that would kibosh Chicago's potential plans for placing a speed camera over each lane of the Kennedy at several locations 'in' from the Edens split.
Mike
If 'in' means from the Edens merge southward, then the existing speed camera law precludes such installations. From the Edens to the western city limit however would be fair game for speed cameras since the law was not written to strictly exclude interstates; only Lake Shore Drive and expressway over eight lanes wide IIRC.
Quote from: hobsini2 on August 28, 2013, 11:50:18 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 21, 2013, 09:16:49 PM
I-294 can be 65 all the way as well as I-88 Illinois 56 West to I-290/294. Both are at least 4 lanes each way.
I-355 maybe all toll parts (but even the free part can be 65) as well I-290 at least I-355 to I-290. I-90 65 I-294 to Elgin.
all of I-94 (tri state tollway) 65 and parts can be 70 if WI goes 70 as well.
I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana State Line??? (Chicago)??? That should be Illinois 120 to WI state line (gurnee)? 70? or just toll to WI state line 70
No Joe. I did mean I-94 from Illinois 120 to Indiana as a section that would not be 70, IMO because that would include the Edens, Kennedy, Ryan, Ford, and Borman. No way would they up the speed limit on I-94 in the Chicago city limits.
I-94 can be 70 from WI to I-294 spilt off then
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 29, 2013, 06:01:46 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 29, 2013, 12:04:04 AM
Yea, that would kibosh Chicago's potential plans for placing a speed camera over each lane of the Kennedy at several locations 'in' from the Edens split.
Mike
If 'in' means from the Edens merge southward, then the existing speed camera law precludes such installations. From the Edens to the western city limit however would be fair game for speed cameras since the law was not written to strictly exclude interstates; only Lake Shore Drive and expressway over eight lanes wide IIRC.
Actually, the speed camera law was written only for school zones and parks and only then when a child was in the camera frame as well as a "speeding" car. Very challengeable, IMHO. Define if the small figure is a child or a dwarf. Child - slow to 20 mph, dwarf - camera cannot be used. It also applies only to cities over 1,000,000 in population.
^ Maybe I am reading it wrong. From http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=965&GAID=11&LegID=55780&SpecSess=&Session= (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=965&GAID=11&LegID=55780&SpecSess=&Session=)
Quote"Safety zone" means an area that is within one-eighth of a
18 mile from the nearest property line of any public or private
19 elementary or secondary school, or from the nearest property
20 line of any facility, area, or land owned by a school district
21 that is used for educational purposes approved by the Illinois
22 State Board of Education, not including school district
23 headquarters or administrative buildings. A safety zone also
24 includes an area that is within one-eighth of a mile from the
25 nearest property line of any facility, area, or land owned by a
26 park district used for recreational purposes. However, if any
SB0965 Enrolled - 42 - LRB097 04676 HEP 44715 b
1 portion of a roadway is within either one-eighth mile radius,
2 the safety zone also shall include the roadway extended to the
3 furthest portion of the next furthest intersection. The term
4 "safety zone" does not include any portion of the roadway known
5 as Lake Shore Drive or any controlled access highway with 8 or
6 more lanes of traffic.
(Emphasis added)
It's that first part you quoted that defines where.
Quote"Safety zone" means an area that is within one-eighth of a
18 mile from the nearest property line of any public or private
19 elementary or secondary school, or from the nearest property
20 line of any facility, area, or land owned by a school district
21 that is used for educational purposes approved by the Illinois
22 State Board of Education, not including school district
23 headquarters or administrative buildings. A safety zone also
24 includes an area that is within one-eighth of a mile from the
25 nearest property line of any facility, area, or land owned by a
26 park district used for recreational purposes.
No other areas may be considered "Safety Zones".
In addition:
Quote7 (a-5) The automated speed enforcement system shall be
8 operational and violations shall be recorded only at the
9 following times:
10 (i) if the safety zone is based upon the property line
11 of any facility, area, or land owned by a school district,
12 on school days no earlier than 6 a.m. and no later than 10
13 p.m.; and
14 (ii) if the safety zone is based upon the property line
15 of any facility, area, or land owned by a park district, no
16 earlier than one hour prior to the time that the facility,
17 area, or land is open to the public or other patrons, and
18 no later than one hour after the facility, area, or land is
19 closed to the public or other patrons.
These zones also have a time limit.
And, restricting it
only to Chicago:
Quote18 (s) This Section applies only to municipalities with a
19 population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants.
This means Aurora, Normal, etc, cannot use them.
Board takes steps to raise speed limit on some stretches of tollways (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-speed-limit-tollways-20131024,0,2623890.story)
QuoteThe Illinois tollway board took steps today to hike the speed limit to 70 mph on some stretches of tollways, starting Jan. 1, 2014.
More please. It's not like anyone respects the underposted 55 mph limit anyway.
Quote from: Brandon on October 24, 2013, 02:11:18 PM
Board takes steps to raise speed limit on some stretches of tollways (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-speed-limit-tollways-20131024,0,2623890.story)
QuoteThe Illinois tollway board took steps today to hike the speed limit to 70 mph on some stretches of tollways, starting Jan. 1, 2014.
More please. It's not like anyone respects the underposted 55 mph limit anyway.
Odd things in that article as they claim the tollways extend to the Wisconsin state line which neither does. And why would a Wisconsin speed limit have any effect on an Illinois speed limit? :confused:
Quote from: Big John on October 24, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 24, 2013, 02:11:18 PM
Board takes steps to raise speed limit on some stretches of tollways (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-speed-limit-tollways-20131024,0,2623890.story)
QuoteThe Illinois tollway board took steps today to hike the speed limit to 70 mph on some stretches of tollways, starting Jan. 1, 2014.
More please. It's not like anyone respects the underposted 55 mph limit anyway.
Odd things in that article as they claim the tollways extend to the Wisconsin state line which neither does. And why would a Wisconsin speed limit have any effect on an Illinois speed limit? :confused:
Actually, the Tri-State Tollway does. ISTHA maintains the stretch between US-41 and the Wisconsin State Line, not IDOT.
Quote from: Brandon on October 24, 2013, 02:11:18 PM
Board takes steps to raise speed limit on some stretches of tollways (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-speed-limit-tollways-20131024,0,2623890.story)
I certainly hope they are just waiting for the construction on I-90 between I-39 and the Elgin Toll Plaza to finish and are not planning on leaving that section at 65.
Interesting how on the Tri-State the southern end of the 70 mph section would be farther south than the current end of the 65 mph section (just south of the Waukegan Toll Plaza).
they need to make most / all of the other 55 parts at least 60-65
Quote from: Big John on October 24, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
Odd things in that article as they claim the tollways extend to the Wisconsin state line which neither does. And why would a Wisconsin speed limit have any effect on an Illinois speed limit? :confused:
The portion of the Tri-State that goes up to 70 (including the free section leading into Wisconsin) is only about 3 miles long. It would be pointless to raise it if Wisconsin doesn't go to 70. The same thing applies to the stretch of the Addams they plan to raise to 70 mph. However, that section is quite a bit longer (about 10 miles?), so it makes more sense.
Speaking of such, I'm sure the section of the Addams under reconstruction will be a 70 zone once all is said and done. If I remember correctly, that section won't be finished until
next year, so they simply didn't make a mention due to the circumstances.
To make things clear, they should do what Ohio did and create a map that defines the 70 zone limits. I'm still not sure what Northeast Illinois has in store.
Bumping this thread because the speed increase is a little over a week away...
ISTHA is on record for which areas will observe the 70 mph speed limit, but did IDOT provide clarity into which zones will be 70? Granted, it's somewhat obvious, but I'd like to know.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on December 21, 2013, 01:32:16 AM
Bumping this thread because the speed increase is a little over a week away...
ISTHA is on record for which areas will observe the 70 mph speed limit, but did IDOT provide clarity into which zones will be 70? Granted, it's somewhat obvious, but I'd like to know.
IDOT dragged their feet on the entire thing. It wouldn't shock me to see them try to pull an ODOT (Oregon).
Forgive my ignorance, but how so?
Oregon passed a law a while back raising the default speed limit on rural interstates to 70, such that lower limits should only be posted if conditions warranted. ODOT decided that every millimeter of interstate was an "exception" to this default.
There have been a few newspaper articles that indicate IDOT will be posted the new speed limit, such as this one from the Newton (IL) paper:
http://www.pressmentor.com/article/20131205/NEWS/131209684/1994/NEWS (http://www.pressmentor.com/article/20131205/NEWS/131209684/1994/NEWS)
Quote from: Brandon on August 22, 2013, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 22, 2013, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: ET21 on August 22, 2013, 12:29:17 PM
294 and 88 can be 65-70 mph, people are already pushing 90 mph on them anyways
Just because there are idiots on the road who like to drive at high speeds in less than ideal conditions (which, sadly, is the majority of drivers who use these roads), doesn't mean the state should cater to them. Upping the speed limits on these roads to an even 60 is good enough. I'm willing to be bet Cook, Dupage, and Lake Counties are willing to keep things as they are, and I don't blame them.
No. The Tri-State and Northwest Tollways can handle 70 mph very well. The exits are far enough apart, and the sight lines for 70 mph are very good. Most folks already go 65-75 mph on both as it is, and it is well known that drivers tend to drive the road at a safe speed regardless of the whims of a legislature's posted speed limit.
IMHO, the only zones that should be less than 70 mph in the state are:
I-55/70: Missouri to Exit 4
I-55: Exit 290 to LSD
I-74: Iowa to Exit 5 (I-280)
I-74: Exit 87 to Exit 99 (I-474 at both ends)
I-80: Exit 130 to Exit 134
I-90: Exit 78 (I-190) to Exit 59A (Chicago Skyway)
I-94: Exit 29 (Edens Spur) to Exit 65
I-190: Entire length
I-290: Exit 12 to the Circle
I would also sign the express lanes of both the Ryan and the Kennedy at 70 mph. Anything more than this is asinine, backwards, and reactionary, IMHO. IDOT should take a clue (actually several clues) from MDOT and do as MDOT has done with the freeways in many cities from Benton Harbor to Detroit and Ann Arbor to Grand Rapids and maintain 70 mph unless there is a design issue.
I think I-74 in Champaign / Urbana should be Speed Limit 60 in my opinion.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on October 25, 2013, 12:38:14 PM
Quote from: Big John on October 24, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
Odd things in that article as they claim the tollways extend to the Wisconsin state line which neither does. And why would a Wisconsin speed limit have any effect on an Illinois speed limit? :confused:
The portion of the Tri-State that goes up to 70 (including the free section leading into Wisconsin) is only about 3 miles long. It would be pointless to raise it if Wisconsin doesn't go to 70. The same thing applies to the stretch of the Addams they plan to raise to 70 mph. However, that section is quite a bit longer (about 10 miles?), so it makes more sense.
Speaking of such, I'm sure the section of the Addams under reconstruction will be a 70 zone once all is said and done. If I remember correctly, that section won't be finished until next year, so they simply didn't make a mention due to the circumstances.
To make things clear, they should do what Ohio did and create a map that defines the 70 zone limits. I'm still not sure what Northeast Illinois has in store.
It's funny, because the Tri State supposedly was at 70 mph north of Dempster St. and I-90 was supposedly at 70 mph west of Barrington Rd. pre-NMSL. Otherwise 65 mph for the rest of the tollways pre-NMSL.
I don't see why almost everything is at 55 mph. Remember the 80 mph enforced limit article? So let's see... 55 mph is dangerous on our tollways AND makes no apparent difference in revenue, since 80 mph seems to be the enforced limit. But the penalties for speeding are higher. The threshold for excessive speeding will be lowered to +26 mph next year. That is 81 mph in 55 zones. 1 mph over the enforced limit is a Class B misdemeanor. Ah, but insurance premiums or surcharges would surely go up for those drivers caught over 80 mph! Illinois is HQ to two of the largest insurers in the nation: Allstate and Statefarm. I'm just trying to see who's really benefiting from 55. Am I connecting the dots right?
To be fair, if the speed limit is set to reflect how the road was engineered, then 26mph over the limit SHOULD have some kind of criminal penalty associated with it. It's having underposted speed limits that aren't enforced that breeds contempt for speed limits in general.
State releases map for new 70 mph speed limit (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-state-releases-map-for-new-70-mph-speed-limit-20131227,0,5031715.story)
QuoteThe map was released about two weeks after a Chicago Tribune analysis showed that the actual speed limit — the point at which most motorists are ticketed on interstates in the 6-county Chicago region — is about 80 mph. Earlier Tribune research showed that 9 of 10 cars on the tollway disregard the 55-mph speed limit. The average speed in those stretches was 66-70 mph, Tribune research found.
Map of where speed limit will increase to 70 mph (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-map-of-where-speed-limit-will-increase-to-70-mpg-20131227,0,1401785.graphic)
The zones are pretty much what I thought they would be. I'm sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford will be revisited once all projects in that area are completed.
The surprise is that the QC will see the bump, and that the small stretch of I-180 gets it too. Everything else was pretty much a given.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on December 27, 2013, 07:21:35 PM
The zones are pretty much what I thought they would be. I'm sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford will be revisited once all projects in that area are completed.
The surprise is that the QC will see the bump, and that the small stretch of I-180 gets it too. Everything else was pretty much a given.
Problem is, it doesn't address everything nor go far enough. If IDOT and ISTHA followed state law and incorporated the speed study data into their results, the zones would include the entire Tri-State Twy, most of I-55 inside I-294, all of I-88, all of I-355, and I-290 west of I-294 as well as all of I-80.
Quote from: Brandon on December 27, 2013, 07:54:35 PM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on December 27, 2013, 07:21:35 PM
The zones are pretty much what I thought they would be. I'm sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford will be revisited once all projects in that area are completed.
The surprise is that the QC will see the bump, and that the small stretch of I-180 gets it too. Everything else was pretty much a given.
Problem is, it doesn't address everything nor go far enough. If IDOT and ISTHA followed state law and incorporated the speed study data into their results, the zones would include the entire Tri-State Twy, most of I-55 inside I-294, all of I-88, all of I-355, and I-290 west of I-294 as well as all of I-80.
Why not at least 60-65? for them?
Also I hope that I-90 will get it when the road work is over.
Crews were out changing signs on I-88 earlier today.
The accuracy of the map is questionable: I-74 inside the I-280/I-80 loop and I-57 through Kankakee will be 70 while I-55/I-72 through Springfield will not? And is the speed limit not going up to 70 through Mount Vernon and Effingham, or is the text just obscuring the roadway?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on December 27, 2013, 09:18:55 PM
Why not at least 60-65? for them?
What's the difference in a mere 5 mph? Might as well make it 70 instead of 65; more people will be legal that way.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 27, 2013, 09:40:52 PM
The accuracy of the map is questionable: I-74 inside the I-280/I-80 loop and I-57 through Kankakee will be 70 while I-55/I-72 through Springfield will not? And is the speed limit not going up to 70 through Mount Vernon and Effingham, or is the text just obscuring the roadway?
Given the congestion at both Mt. V and Effingham, I would be shocked to see those areas go to 70. 65 is almost too fast on some days, especially at Mt. Vernon.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on December 28, 2013, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 27, 2013, 09:40:52 PM
The accuracy of the map is questionable: I-74 inside the I-280/I-80 loop and I-57 through Kankakee will be 70 while I-55/I-72 through Springfield will not? And is the speed limit not going up to 70 through Mount Vernon and Effingham, or is the text just obscuring the roadway?
Given the congestion at both Mt. V and Effingham, I would be shocked to see those areas go to 70. 65 is almost too fast on some days, especially at Mt. Vernon.
70 is fine for them. Congestion is just a lame-ass excuse for not properly setting a limit.
Interesting that the map has at least part of the US 67 freeway bypass of Jacksonville going to 70. I'm guessing has is some technicality with the business loop for 72 being on that stretch.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 28, 2013, 10:20:55 PM
Interesting that the map has at least part of the US 67 freeway bypass of Jacksonville going to 70. I'm guessing has is some technicality with the business loop for 72 being on that stretch.
Given that there are not too many non-interstate freeways in Illinois of any substantial length, I'm not too surprised at the lack of them on the map.
I am a bit surprised that according to the map the 70 zone on I-88 west doesn't start at the 56 Sugar Grove split but rather by Maple Grove.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2013, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on December 28, 2013, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 27, 2013, 09:40:52 PM
The accuracy of the map is questionable: I-74 inside the I-280/I-80 loop and I-57 through Kankakee will be 70 while I-55/I-72 through Springfield will not? And is the speed limit not going up to 70 through Mount Vernon and Effingham, or is the text just obscuring the roadway?
Given the congestion at both Mt. V and Effingham, I would be shocked to see those areas go to 70. 65 is almost too fast on some days, especially at Mt. Vernon.
70 is fine for them. Congestion is just a lame-ass excuse for not properly setting a limit.
55/72 around Springfield needs an extra lane in each direction first.
I'm surprised it's going to be 70 through Champaign, but maybe it's just me.
I'm surprised too by Champaign, that highway just seems a bit busy for a few miles, but if 70 works in Chicago (wink, wink) then it may be fine there. I saw that the stretch of 55/74 in Bloomington is 70, probably with the newly rebuilt highway there it works. Similar projects around Springfield, Effingham and Mt. Vernon would probably bump those up to 70 as well.
Quote from: adt1982 on December 29, 2013, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2013, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on December 28, 2013, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 27, 2013, 09:40:52 PM
The accuracy of the map is questionable: I-74 inside the I-280/I-80 loop and I-57 through Kankakee will be 70 while I-55/I-72 through Springfield will not? And is the speed limit not going up to 70 through Mount Vernon and Effingham, or is the text just obscuring the roadway?
Given the congestion at both Mt. V and Effingham, I would be shocked to see those areas go to 70. 65 is almost too fast on some days, especially at Mt. Vernon.
70 is fine for them. Congestion is just a lame-ass excuse for not properly setting a limit.
55/72 around Springfield needs an extra lane in each direction first.
And for some reason 70 is fine for a similar section of I-94 in Jackson, Michigan.
If it's good enough there, it's good enough here. IDOT can knock it off with the "not invented here" crappola.
Isn't the Mt. Vernon widening project done already?- With three lanes in each direction, there should be no reason to slow you down now.
Just a frickin' speed trap now- 70 then 65 for approx. 4 miles and then back up to 70, and unlike the northern part of the state, they do patrol the speed down there.
If they are not gonna raise Mt. Vernon even when it is complete, there is no way in hell they will ever raise Effingham. Much more traffic there compared to Mt. Vernon from what I have seen goin' down to the lake.
Just noticed....
No increase to US20 around Rockford out to the State St. (business 20) merge....
So IDOT, you are telling me that the area with the most merging and congestion in the area is "safe enough" (from the I-39 split up to Harrison Ave/Cherry Valley Interchange) to raise to 70 (the area I usually can't keep my normal 74 MPH due to increased traffic), but the straight line freeway with miles between its interchanges remains 65 because it is "too unsafe" to raise to 70.
There is no rhyme or reason to this at all. But at least we finally have some 70 zones in Illinois and Blago couldn't veto it from jail.
I know Indiana is a different state, but I'm sort of confused as to why the SL drops from 70 to 65 in Terre Haute. All the exits in TH are spaced out fairly far from each other.
Quote from: US 41 on January 01, 2014, 01:15:23 AM
I know Indiana is a different state, but I'm sort of confused as to why the SL drops from 70 to 65 in Terre Haute. All the exits in TH are spaced out fairly far from each other.
This is just a guess on my part, since I've never driven this section of I-70. But could the speed reduction be to slow drivers down in preparation for IL and to match their current speed limit? I know the new limit takes effect today, but I'm assuming that it isn't legal until the signs are changed (presumably sometime in the near future). Perhaps once the limit is raised in IL, INDOT will increase the limit in Terre Haute.
I-65 has a slower speed limit around Lafayette with similarly spaced exits like Terre Haute. While the Illinois aspect to TH's speed limits may be valid, it could just INDOT lowering the interstate near a mid-sized city. Presumebly by that measure, I-69 will have a slower speed limit around Bloomington. Come to think of it, I'm sure it will.
So, I hear the speed limit on interstates in Illinois is now 70 miles per hour.
My best guess is that it's based on the number and severity of accidents on I-70 through the Terre Haute area in recent years. It carries a lot more traffic than they planned for back when it was built.
Wow, they're going to raise I-74 to 70 in Moline. Here's to hoping that puts the pressure on Iowa to raise their entire portion after the bridge to at least 65.
And 255 between I-64 and Missouri could go to 70 as well. I've been on 255 countless times at all times of the day and it has very little traffic for the way it's built.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on January 01, 2014, 11:59:29 AM
My best guess is that it's based on the number and severity of accidents on I-70 through the Terre Haute area in recent years. It carries a lot more traffic than they planned for back when it was built.
I think the lower speed limit around Terre Haute and Lafayette may be due in part to the gradual lifting of the national 55 MPH limit. In Indiana, the first increases were allowed along interstates, but
not on the segments in counties that contained cities above a certain population. Tippecanoe and Vigo counties would have retained the 55 limit at that time.
That led to very odd locations of speed limit reductions, at county lines that were often far from urban areas. The folly of this was eventually recognized and limits crept upward within those counties. I assume that jnewkirk's idea about accident and traffic levels in those areas played a part in preventing the limit going up all the way to 70.
First post here. I happened to notice the other day that the speed limit along I-290 (at least the portion between Addison and Schaumburg) has been bumped up to 60 mph (still 55 for trucks). I haven't seen any prior mention of this, nor does there seem to by any publication that mentions this. Obviously, the tollways have made it clear that theirs will not be raised for the time being. Has anyone else seen any similar bumps in the speed limit on any Chicago area IDOT Interstates Highways? (Would have been nice to see at least 65 mph though, and not surprisingly, the flow of traffic was no different).
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 06, 2014, 09:58:16 PM
First post here. I happened to notice the other day that the speed limit along I-290 (at least the portion between Addison and Schaumburg) has been bumped up to 60 mph (still 55 for trucks). I haven't seen any prior mention of this, nor does there seem to by any publication that mentions this. Obviously, the tollways have made it clear that theirs will not be raised for the time being. Has anyone else seen any similar bumps in the speed limit on any Chicago area IDOT Interstates Highways? (Would have been nice to see at least 65 mph though, and not surprisingly, the flow of traffic was no different).
Interesting, I've never heard of that either. Tomorrow I'll see if any of the three 55 zones on I-80 were bumped up to 60.
Welcome to the forum, by the way.
UPDATE: I was disappointed to see that none of the signs along the length of I-80, not even the 65 signs, had been replaced.
with all the snow it's hard to see some signs
I saw a 70 on 39/90 just north of the Cherry Valley Interchange on Saturday. This morning I39 between 72 and Rochelle had been bumped up as well.
They have the 70 signs up on I64 from Indiana line to Mt Vernon. speed limit is still 65 in the I64/57 area around Mt Vernon.
I-55 is now signed for 70 from Springfield to at least Litchfield.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 06, 2014, 09:58:16 PM
First post here. I happened to notice the other day that the speed limit along I-290 (at least the portion between Addison and Schaumburg) has been bumped up to 60 mph (still 55 for trucks). I haven't seen any prior mention of this, nor does there seem to by any publication that mentions this. Obviously, the tollways have made it clear that theirs will not be raised for the time being. Has anyone else seen any similar bumps in the speed limit on any Chicago area IDOT Interstates Highways? (Would have been nice to see at least 65 mph though, and not surprisingly, the flow of traffic was no different).
I-355 needs to go to 60 or more to match it seems odd for the main flow to drop from 60 to 55 there.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 17, 2014, 09:33:27 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 06, 2014, 09:58:16 PM
First post here. I happened to notice the other day that the speed limit along I-290 (at least the portion between Addison and Schaumburg) has been bumped up to 60 mph (still 55 for trucks). I haven't seen any prior mention of this, nor does there seem to by any publication that mentions this. Obviously, the tollways have made it clear that theirs will not be raised for the time being. Has anyone else seen any similar bumps in the speed limit on any Chicago area IDOT Interstates Highways? (Would have been nice to see at least 65 mph though, and not surprisingly, the flow of traffic was no different).
I-355 needs to go to 60 or more to match it seems odd for the main flow to drop from 60 to 55 there.
I would also say the same with IL 53 north of I-90, though I know some of the exits through that stretch are an older design. I guess IDOT is applying the same philosophy there as with U.S. 20 near Rockford. It seems the tollway is resistant to any incremental increases unless it is the rural stretches that went up to 70.
Quote from: adt1982 on January 17, 2014, 08:13:27 PM
I-55 is now signed for 70 from Springfield to at least Litchfield.
The 70 mph signage on I-55 is complete through IL. Approximate locations of the transitions:
* About 1/2 mile north of North River Road (Exit 241)
* Maybe 1 mile north of the IL 54 cloverleaf for SB, much closer to the interchange for NB. SB gets a reduced speed ahead sign, NB has a pair of flags on the first 70 mph sign.
* Right after the western/southern interchange with I-72 SB; I want to say the drop northbound is around the overpass for the street Google labels as Southwind Drive. NB also gets a reduced speed ahead sign.
* Somewhere around a mile north of I-270.
The IDOT maintained portion of I-355 is still 55.
There has not been an increase of the 55 mph section on I-55 to 60 either.
I-70 is posted as 70 from the IN/IL state line to Effingham. I didn't go west of Effingham so I don't know if that's posted as 70, but I'd guess it probably is. Effingham is 65. The widening project is pretty much finished in Effingham.
Quote from: US 41 on January 01, 2014, 01:15:23 AM
I know Indiana is a different state, but I'm sort of confused as to why the SL drops from 70 to 65 in Terre Haute. All the exits in TH are spaced out fairly far from each other.
From SR 46 to the Illinois line, traffic is heavier, you have bridges with no shoulders, you have older highway design standards, not to mention present day traffic levels on a highway design from the 1960s. On top of that, the first exit westbound (former US 40) is a left exit, just after the weigh station and prior to the welcome center. All in all, 65 is a justified limit for the stretch. Until the road is rebuilt and widened, 70 will likely not be seen at Terre Haute.
I-70 is supposed to get widened to 3 lanes each direction in Terre Haute. Whether or not it will actually happen, who knows.
I-88 between IL-47 and DeKalb have the 70 finally, on very tall wooden posts :-D
Quote from: UNDSIOUX on December 31, 2013, 10:44:02 AM
Just noticed....
No increase to US20 around Rockford out to the State St. (business 20) merge....
So IDOT, you are telling me that the area with the most merging and congestion in the area is "safe enough" (from the I-39 split up to Harrison Ave/Cherry Valley Interchange) to raise to 70 (the area I usually can't keep my normal 74 MPH due to increased traffic), but the straight line freeway with miles between its interchanges remains 65 because it is "too unsafe" to raise to 70.
There is no rhyme or reason to this at all. But at least we finally have some 70 zones in Illinois and Blago couldn't veto it from jail.
I saw last night the I39/US20/US51 section of the Rockford bypass is still 65, it did not get the increase that 39/90/51 got north of the Cherry Valley interchange, and 39/51 got south of US 20.
That's probably for the best. There's quite a lot of activity in a short space in the I-39/US-20/US-51 section, particularly EBD/NBD right at the tollway interchange.
The remainder of the bypass probably could handle a 70mph limit, but at the west end of the bypass it'd have to go back down to 65mph again. Is it worth the effort?
And honestly, even if the speed limit remains 65mph on the Rockford Bypass, it's fairly common for travelers to go 70-75mph anyway.....and the state police don't seem to mind.
I recently used the I-80 Mississippi River crossing; going WB the speed limit drops to 65 right where the entrance from IL 84 merges in.
EB I-280 gets posted at 70 right after it's Mississippi River bridge.
I didn't have time though to see how I-74 is posted now.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 06, 2014, 09:33:18 PM
I recently used the I-80 Mississippi River crossing; going WB the speed limit drops to 65 right where the entrance from IL 84 merges in.
EB I-280 gets posted at 70 right after it's Mississippi River bridge.
I didn't have time though to see how I-74 is posted now.
IIRC, it's still 65 from the River to the Airport. I'm not able to go back to verify that until mid-May, though.
Quote from: pianocello on April 06, 2014, 09:59:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 06, 2014, 09:33:18 PM
I recently used the I-80 Mississippi River crossing; going WB the speed limit drops to 65 right where the entrance from IL 84 merges in.
EB I-280 gets posted at 70 right after it's Mississippi River bridge.
I didn't have time though to see how I-74 is posted now.
IIRC, it's still 65 from the River to the Airport. I'm not able to go back to verify that until mid-May, though.
It is what he said it is.
Quote from: US 41 on January 01, 2014, 01:15:23 AM
I know Indiana is a different state, but I'm sort of confused as to why the SL drops from 70 to 65 in Terre Haute. All the exits in TH are spaced out fairly far from each other.
INDOT raised the speed limit from 65 to 70 through West Terre Haute. It is still 65 from the Wabash River to Exit 11 however.
The Tri-State Tollway between Gurnee (roughly IL-132/Grand Avenue) and the Wisconsin border was supposed to become 70 mph, but that hasn't happened yet.
Quote from: mwp3 on April 11, 2014, 12:00:30 AM
The Tri-State Tollway between Gurnee (roughly IL-132/Grand Avenue) and the Wisconsin border was supposed to become 70 mph, but that hasn't happened yet.
Any plans to increase beyond Gurnee? Driving 55 may be dangerous! :)
Quote from: jreuschl on April 11, 2014, 12:32:11 AM
Quote from: mwp3 on April 11, 2014, 12:00:30 AM
The Tri-State Tollway between Gurnee (roughly IL-132/Grand Avenue) and the Wisconsin border was supposed to become 70 mph, but that hasn't happened yet.
Any plans to increase beyond Gurnee? Driving 55 may be dangerous! :)
I think that it's 65 after the border at which it becomes a freeway again.
This won't happen for a while. All of this is currently a 45 mph construction zone while they are putting in the 4th lane. Why this part wasn't widened when the rebuilt the rest of the Tri State is beyond me.
Quote from: mwp3 on April 12, 2014, 12:42:02 AM
Quote from: jreuschl on April 11, 2014, 12:32:11 AM
Quote from: mwp3 on April 11, 2014, 12:00:30 AM
The Tri-State Tollway between Gurnee (roughly IL-132/Grand Avenue) and the Wisconsin border was supposed to become 70 mph, but that hasn't happened yet.
Any plans to increase beyond Gurnee? Driving 55 may be dangerous! :)
I think that it's 65 after the border at which it becomes a freeway again.
they waited for WI to do there part so they pushed it back a bit.
well, WI is not doing their part, so it will be a while
Interesting... sounds like some potentially amazing news.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT3h3gGh.png&hash=4348ea41237f913c191ea128dc59ad1de01fa4a2)
The bill in question is SB 2015, awaiting the governor's signature or not (veto-proof).
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2015&GAID=12&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=85&GA=98
Now they need to prove that it is unsafe to go 80 m.p.h. on rural freeways in Illinois.
I'm sure the Toll Authority will still find some way to stay at 55 if the bill becomes law - probably some excuse such as peak period congestion, or being consistent with the non-tolled facilities around Chicagoland.
Lawmakers can bitch about it forever, still won't change the fact drivers do 70+ no matter what the limit is on the interstates
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 16, 2014, 08:21:22 PM
I'm sure the Toll Authority will still find some way to stay at 55 if the bill becomes law - probably some excuse such as peak period congestion, or being consistent with the non-tolled facilities around Chicagoland.
Which is funny because ISP District 15 tolerates 70-75 as it is right now. Posting 70 would merely make what is currently tolerated legal.
From recent travels, I have found that the US 34 freeway between Galesburg and Monmouth, the US 67 bypass of Jacksonville, and the US 51 freeway south of I-72 in the Decatur area are still posted at 65.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 06, 2014, 10:49:44 PM
From recent travels, I have found that the US 34 freeway between Galesburg and Monmouth, the US 67 bypass of Jacksonville, and the US 51 freeway south of I-72 in the Decatur area are still posted at 65.
I don't believe any "stand alone" controlled access US Highways are marked above 65 when plenty could be.
I'm sure the freeway portion of US34 could very well handle 70 MPH. I know when I drive the controlled access portion of US51 from I-72 to Macon near Decatur and can always count the amount of cars using the road by using the fingers on only one hand, I just realize there was no rhyme and reason to IDOT's speed limit plan. :no:
Maybe there will be a better mindset with Annie "no-no to 70" Schneider being shown the door at IDOT, and the 70 MPH map will be expanded to cover these highways.
Update on that bill. Vetoed by Quinn a$ expected.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-quinn-vetoes-70-mph-speed-limit-for-tollways-20140826-story.html
Quote
August 26, 2014, 6:13 PM
Quinn vetoes 70 mph speed limit for tollways
Gov. Pat Quinn today vetoed a measure that would have raised the maximum speed limit on Illinois' tollways to 70 mph from the current 65 mph, citing safety concerns.
"Recent evidence shows that drivers already travel at excessive speeds on Illinois toll highways," Quinn said in his veto message to lawmakers.
The governor said a tollway study of drivers on Interstate 94 in Lake County last year found 71 percent of them exceeded the posted limit by 15 mph or more. Another tollway study found between 91 percent and 98 percent of drivers on seven different tollway segments exceeded the speed limit from 11 mph to 15 mph during off-peak hours, he added.
"The convenience of increased speeds for drivers on Illinois tollways does not outweigh the safety risks to children, families and our dedicated public servants," Quinn said.
The measure passed the legislature in May with enough votes to override a veto --- 111-4 in the House and 48-6 in the Senate. The measure was sponsored by state Sen. Jim Oberweis, the Sugar Grove Republican who is challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin in the Nov. 4 general election.
Last year, Quinn signed into law a separate Oberweis bill that raised the speed limit on rural interstates to 70 mph. Quinn signed that bill despite objections from the Illinois Department of Transportation, state police and leading roadway safety organizations, who feared increased mayhem on the highways, especially between cars and trucks.
"This limited 5 miles-per-hour increase will bring Illinois' rural interstate speed limits in line with our neighbors' and the majority of states across America, while preventing an increase in excessive speeding," Quinn said in a statement last year.
^^ I see that veto being overridden. It'll make Quinn look like the fool he is.
Chicago politics seem to be losing in this one...
So it's actually being talked about...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-65-mph-tollway-20140828-story.html#page=1
Subscriber-only article, but quoting it in case anyone is blocked from it.
Quote
Quinn's speed-limit bill veto adds fuel to debate
In rejecting a bill that would have raised speed limits to 70 mph throughout Illinois' 286-mile network of tollways, Gov. Pat Quinn reignited the debate on what constitutes the safest pace for vehicles on the road.
"Good for him," Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said when she heard that Quinn vetoed a measure that lawmakers approved overwhelmingly in May. "Because speed kills."
But John Bowman, spokesman for the National Motorists Association, which advocates for higher speed limits, said Quinn "kind of got it backward with his logic there." Studies showing that upward of 98 percent of drivers on tollway segments exceed the limits by as much as 15 mph are "probably a good indication that the speed limit needs to be raised up," Bowman said.
Quinn used those statistics in his veto of the measure, which specifically called for raising speed limits in "urban district" stretches of the tollway.
Drivers already are traveling too fast in those urban districts and should be discouraged from driving faster, Quinn said. That position contrasted with his stance last year, when he signed a bill raising speed limits on rural interstates, saying that the increase would bring those speed limits in line with most other states while preventing an increase in excessive speeding.
As it stands today, interstate segments farther from urban areas have posted limits of 65 to 70 mph while much of the Chicago region's interstates have 55-mph limits, though drivers regularly travel much faster without penalty.
At the Hinsdale Oasis on Interstate 294 on Wednesday afternoon, drivers expressed starkly different speed philosophies.
"I think they've got to keep the pace of the traffic up," said David Hille, of Vermilion, Ohio, grabbing a cup of coffee for the commute home. "Cars can go faster safer. It's just the drivers. Cars don't get into the accidents; drivers do."
An opposing view came from Kim Gabriele, who said highway speeds in her hometown of Kalamazoo, Mich., are higher than in the Chicago area. But she said the congestion of the Illinois tollway system necessitates lower speeds.
"I personally wouldn't mind keeping it lower for that reason," she said. "Depending on what your set point is, everyone always goes faster than that. If the limit is 75, people are going to go 80."
Quinn's veto was supported by Illinois Tollway administrators. After he signed the bill increasing speeds on rural highways last year, the Tollway raised speed limits to 70 mph on nearly 80 miles of its system, but not in urban areas, where it remains 55 mph.
But the Tollway, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Illinois State Police opposed the bill to raise limits on urban segments of toll roads. Tollway spokeswoman Wendy Abrams said Wednesday that "there is no immediate benefit to increasing the speed limit on urban portions of our system that already experience excessive speeding."
Quinn vetoed the bill Tuesday, saying he was placing "the safety risks to children, families and our dedicated public servants" above "the convenience of increased speeds for drivers."
Quinn, a Democrat, is running for re-election in November. State Sen. Jim Oberweis, a Sugar Grove Republican and his party's nominee for U.S. senator, sponsored the bill Quinn rejected.
Oberweis said he believed Quinn's rejection was politically motivated.
"There's no good, logical argument for vetoing that bill," he said.
Oberweis, who also sponsored the bill raising rural interstate speed limits, said "75 percent of the people" and 90 percent of lawmakers supported the bill to raise limits on urban tollways. "Then, he (Quinn) has the unmitigated gall to veto it because he personally doesn't like it. That's just ridiculous.
"It's pretty clear that this is the will of the people," Oberweis added, noting a common theme among higher speed limit advocates: that speed differences between vehicles is a byproduct of artificially low limits and is the major cause of highway crashes.
Since Congress allowed states in 1995 to set limits above a national maximum of 65 mph, 34 states have raised speed limits to 70 mph or higher on some roads. Illinois did so on rural interstates Jan. 1.
Speed limits throughout the state fall into two categories: what's posted and what drivers appear to obey. A Tribune analysis of speeding ticket data suggested that while the posted limit on Chicago-area interstates was 55 mph, the enforced speed limit – the point at which troopers write a ticket – is generally closer to 80 mph.
Bowman's group, based in Waunakee, Wis., advocates setting limits at or near the pace at which 85 percent of drivers are traveling. The organization says setting limits at the 85th percentile reduces speed differential and weaving – two key factors in crashes.
He pointed to 2012 data in Utah that showed speeding and fatalities remained unchanged when speed limits were increased to 80 mph on highway segments there.
But Gillan's group, based in Washington, has studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that say involvement with severe crashes increases with speed and that drivers continue to ratchet up their speeds beyond the posted limit when that limit is raised.
As for setting speed limits at the 85th percentile, Gillan said that is an oversimplified approach, not based in scientific study.
"If the 85th percentile is driving in excess of 0.08 blood alcohol concentration, shouldn't we set the national limit above that?" she said. "If most people are not wearing seat belts, should we outlaw seat belts? Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's safe."
She also noted that speed differential is not a factor in almost all single-car crashes.
And, drawing "a causal relationship" between higher speeds and fewer fatalities is flawed thinking, she said.
The reason for decreasing numbers of fatalities is that motorists are driving safer cars and drunken driving laws are tougher, Gillan said. Even with those changes, 33,000 people die a year in motor vehicle crashes, the equivalent of "a major airplane crash every single day of the week," she added.
"The fact of the matter is when you're driving 70 or 75 miles an hour," Gillan said, "cars can't withstand crashes at those speeds; neither can people."
Oberweis said he will reintroduce the bill at the veto session in November and expects that "it's highly likely" legislators will override Quinn's veto.
In May, his colleagues in the Senate approved it 48-6. A few weeks later, lawmakers in the House followed by passing it 111-4 – votes that would withstand a veto if the measure returns to senators and House members.
^^ "Speed kills" has got to be one of the biggest lies ever told. Speed does not kill, speed differentials kill, inattentiveness kills, but pure speed by itself does not kill.
In addition, if 70 is good enough for the W.P. Reuther Freeway in Metro Detroit, it's good enough for the Tri-State Tollway.
Not following the 85th percentile speed to set the speed limit at I see.
Quote from: Big John on August 29, 2014, 10:56:18 AM
Not following the 85th percentile speed to set the speed limit at I see.
Of course not. We live in a nanny-state full with a nanny-governor who places nannies at the heads of ISTHA, IDOT, and the ISP. Never mind that no one pays any heed to the 55 mph limit on the tollways, and the 85th percentile has been measured between 65 and 70 mph, and District 15 of the ISP have a tolerance of 70-75 mph. 70 mph on the tollways actually makes sense. I guess that's why Quinnochio vetoed the bill. It actually makes sense. Come November, I'm vetoing his ass (for many, many reasons, including this one).
Still do 70 lol
Hello all! First post here
While I do support the bill to raise urban speed limits to 70, I don't expect the tollway to up any speed limits even if the veto is overridden, which is most likely. The tollway needs to be pressured to post speed limits above 55 by its customers.
I was also on I-290 recently between I-355 and I-90 and was pleased to see 60mph signs for myself. I am hoping more suburban highways IDOT maintains will get this new limit and the tollway will at least change their limit to 60 instead of 55.
And as far as rural freeway speed limits the accuracy of the IDOT map is questionable. The map makes it look like 70mph on I-55 starts at Bluff Road but when I was out there in April I didn't see a 70 till about mm242 (1/2 mile north of N. River Rd). I-57 drops to 65 once you enter Cook County so 70mph doesn't extend to U.S. 30. Does anyone know how I-80 is posted? According to the map it looks like 70mph stops at I-55. Also, is I-74 through Champaign 70?
Quote from: dave069 on September 02, 2014, 06:00:20 PMDoes anyone know how I-80 is posted? According to the map it looks like 70mph stops at I-55.
The 70 mph speed limit stops just west of I-55.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 02, 2014, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: dave069 on September 02, 2014, 06:00:20 PMDoes anyone know how I-80 is posted? According to the map it looks like 70mph stops at I-55.
The 70 mph speed limit stops just west of I-55.
Between the DuPage River and I-55.
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2014, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 02, 2014, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: dave069 on September 02, 2014, 06:00:20 PMDoes anyone know how I-80 is posted? According to the map it looks like 70mph stops at I-55.
The 70 mph speed limit stops just west of I-55.
Between the DuPage River and I-55.
Ah thanks! Nice to know that it is actually posted according to the map.
Update:Veto override session. Passed the Senate. House vote is in 2 weeks.
http://patch.com/illinois/naperville/state-sen-oberweis-leads-override-governors-speed-limit-veto-0
Quote
State Sen. Oberweis leads override of Governor's speed-limit veto
Senator Jim Oberweis has successfully challenged a veto of legislation he sponsored to raise the speed limit on Illinois toll highways.
SPRINGFIELD — State Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove) has successfully challenged a gubernatorial veto of legislation he sponsored to raise the speed limit on Illinois toll highways to 70 miles-per-hour.
The Senate voted 44-5-1 on Nov. 20 to override Gov. Pat Quinn's veto of Senate Bill 2015.
"The Governor is fond of saying "ËœLet the will of the people be the law of the land,' yet he was quick to veto legislation that was sponsored by 36 Senators representing Chicago, suburban and downstate areas of Illinois," Oberweis said. "And today, a majority of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in overriding the Governor's veto."
Senate Bill 2015 now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration.
Quinn vetoed Oberweis' Senate Bill 2015 on Aug. 26, citing evidence that tollway drivers already exceed the speed limit in many cases, which he said can lead to serious accidents. Oberweis noted a recent study showed that differential speeds between vehicles were actually more problematic. The original 70 mph speed limit law he sponsored last year — Senate Bill 2356 — already provides tougher penalties for people who exceed the speed limit by more than 26 mph.
"The Governor's argument that tollway drivers already exceed the speed limit is a great argument as to why we should increase the current speed limit to 70 mph," Oberweis said. "And it is an argument we have already addressed in the original law. Those who exceed the 70 mph limit by more than 26 mph now face tougher penalties."
Oberweis said the original law, which took effect Jan. 1, provides public safety enhancements in the form of a lowered threshold upon which the penalty for speeding is increased from a petty offense to a misdemeanor. Speeding in excess of 26 mph but less than 35 mph (currently 31-40 mph) will be a Class B misdemeanor. Speeding in excess of 35 mph (currently 40 mph) will be a Class A misdemeanor.
Senate Bill 2015 was passed by a 111-4 vote of the House of Representatives on May 29 and by a 48-6 vote of the Senate on May 21.
^^ A nice, last "FUCK YOU" to Pat "Judas" Quinn. :clap:
I'm looking forward to legally being able to do 70 all the way through Chicagoland en route to Michigan.
I hope that tollway also means the 53 extension even if they build for 45 MPH (no one will be doing that and US12 has 50-55 MPH parts)
So if that bill passes the House and the Tollways are bumped to 70, what are the chances that IDOT will increase the speed of their interstates in the area? Obviously nothing will change inside the Tri-State, but I wonder if they would put a speed limit of 70 on I-80 east of Joliet or I-55 in DuPage and Will Counties.
Maybe IL-53 / I-290 up till I-294.
Quote from: pianocello on November 22, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
So if that bill passes the House and the Tollways are bumped to 70, what are the chances that IDOT will increase the speed of their interstates in the area? Obviously nothing will change inside the Tri-State, but I wonder if they would put a speed limit of 70 on I-80 east of Joliet or I-55 in DuPage and Will Counties.
I doubt IDOT will change any speed limits if the bill passes - it will probably take a separate bill to get anything other speed limits bumped up. I still expect the tollway to find a way to keep most of their roads at 55 - possibly through perpetual construction given how they once dropped the speed limit on I-294 down to 45 for some minor shoulder work.
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 21, 2014, 10:04:08 PM
I'm looking forward to legally being able to do 70 all the way through Chicagoland en route to Michigan.
You would still have a brief section of 55 on I-80/I-94 between the Indiana border and I-294 that is not part of the tollway system.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2014, 10:31:42 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 22, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
So if that bill passes the House and the Tollways are bumped to 70, what are the chances that IDOT will increase the speed of their interstates in the area? Obviously nothing will change inside the Tri-State, but I wonder if they would put a speed limit of 70 on I-80 east of Joliet or I-55 in DuPage and Will Counties.
I doubt IDOT will change any speed limits if the bill passes - it will probably take a separate bill to get anything other speed limits bumped up. I still expect the tollway to find a way to keep most of their roads at 55 - possibly through perpetual construction given how they once dropped the speed limit on I-294 down to 45 for some minor shoulder work.
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 21, 2014, 10:04:08 PM
I'm looking forward to legally being able to do 70 all the way through Chicagoland en route to Michigan.
You would still have a brief section of 55 on I-80/I-94 between the Indiana border and I-294 that is not part of the tollway system.
The borman is still 55? and perpetual construction 45 on 70 MPH road will just make it even more of joke and even more useless
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 22, 2014, 10:31:42 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 22, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
So if that bill passes the House and the Tollways are bumped to 70, what are the chances that IDOT will increase the speed of their interstates in the area? Obviously nothing will change inside the Tri-State, but I wonder if they would put a speed limit of 70 on I-80 east of Joliet or I-55 in DuPage and Will Counties.
I doubt IDOT will change any speed limits if the bill passes - it will probably take a separate bill to get anything other speed limits bumped up. I still expect the tollway to find a way to keep most of their roads at 55 - possibly through perpetual construction given how they once dropped the speed limit on I-294 down to 45 for some minor shoulder work.
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 21, 2014, 10:04:08 PM
I'm looking forward to legally being able to do 70 all the way through Chicagoland en route to Michigan.
You would still have a brief section of 55 on I-80/I-94 between the Indiana border and I-294 that is not part of the tollway system.
True. And, of course, the Borman is still 55. But it's a relatively short section of my drive around Chicago.
Good news today!
http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/mph-speed-limit-coming-to-illinois-toll-roads/article_57238c9a-22fa-5187-a769-4e2f4a9e2503.html
Quote
70-mph speed limit coming to Illinois toll roads
SPRINGFIELD – Motorists soon could see the speed limit on Illinois toll highways jump to 70 mph.
On Wednesday, the Illinois House voted 100-11 to override Gov. Pat Quinn's veto of legislation that would have allowed the higher speeds on the nearly 300-mile network of roads in the Chicago area.
The move follows an earlier vote in the Senate to turn back Quinn's bid to scuttle the proposal and came a day after the General Assembly overrode a veto allowing higher truck speeds on Chicago-area expressways.
The higher speed limits on the tollways brings Chicago-area expressways in line with downstate interstates, which were switched to a 70-mph speed limit last year.
Quinn vetoed the toll road legislation in August, arguing that the higher speeds would create a safety risk for motorists and public safety workers.
The higher speeds were opposed by the Illinois State Police, tollway officials and the Illinois Department of Transportation.
The legislation is Senate Bill 2015.
A victory for reality.
I hope im wrong but i dont think the tollway will raise any speed limits to 70. They'll probably use a lame excuse to stay at 55. Maybe some 55 roads will go to 60 like the north section of I-355 since I-290 is 60 between 355 and I-90.
Quote from: dave069 on December 05, 2014, 09:53:45 AM
I hope im wrong but i dont think the tollway will raise any speed limits to 70. They'll probably use a lame excuse to stay at 55. Maybe some 55 roads will go to 60 like the north section of I-355 since I-290 is 60 between 355 and I-90.
Counties can still opt-out of the plan. -- that is the lame excuse.
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 05, 2014, 01:44:17 PM
Quote from: dave069 on December 05, 2014, 09:53:45 AM
I hope im wrong but i dont think the tollway will raise any speed limits to 70. They'll probably use a lame excuse to stay at 55. Maybe some 55 roads will go to 60 like the north section of I-355 since I-290 is 60 between 355 and I-90.
Counties can still opt-out of the plan. -- that is the lame excuse.
Only 6 counties can opt out, and of those, 2 have no roads over 65 mph (one has none over 55 - DuPage), and the other 4 have 70 mph freeways/tollways (Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will).
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2014, 05:29:56 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 05, 2014, 01:44:17 PM
Quote from: dave069 on December 05, 2014, 09:53:45 AM
I hope im wrong but i dont think the tollway will raise any speed limits to 70. They'll probably use a lame excuse to stay at 55. Maybe some 55 roads will go to 60 like the north section of I-355 since I-290 is 60 between 355 and I-90.
Counties can still opt-out of the plan. -- that is the lame excuse.
Only 6 counties can opt out, and of those, 2 have no roads over 65 mph (one has none over 55 - DuPage), and the other 4 have 70 mph freeways/tollways (Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will).
I feel like the county boards don't care enough one way or the other to opt out, especially in Will, Kane, Lake, and McHenry where rural 70mph roads exist, but the tollway seems really resistant to higher speed limits around Chicagoland, so they'd probably just decide not to post it, even if no county opts out.
They have to provide proof that it's unsafe to post the limit - which they could doctor up if they were the assholes they pretend to be, It's likely that this shit's going in front of judges.
Yeah, I feel like they'd probably do anything they could to keep their roads 55. They're gonna pull an Oregon. At least I-90 west of Elgin will probably become a 70 M.P.H. zone soon. If it doesn't I'll have to complain to them personally.
From the facebook page "Raise the Speed Limit in Metro Chicago & Illinois"
https://www.facebook.com/raisethespeedlimitinmetrochicagoandillinois/posts/402628333245873
Dec. 18th (sorry it's a little late):
Jim Walker from NMA released our secret weapon at the Tollway Board of Directors meeting today. Jim Walker, Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove) and Steve Doner attended and testified to the board, but the most persuasive case was a written statement from F/Lt Thad Peterson of the Michigan State Police which Walker read and handed out. Peterson was invited to the meeting but had a conflict. Full statement pasted below. Recording will be available on Tollway website within a couple of days.
--------------------------------
Madam Chairman and members of the board,
My name is Thad Peterson, and I retired from the Michigan Department of State Police in early 2013, after 25 years of service to the citizens of Michigan.
During the last 10 years of my career with the State Police I served as the commanding officer of the Traffic Services Section, where one of our main focus areas together with the Department of Transportation, County Road Commissions, and elected officials of all levels, was to correct hundreds of artificially low speed limits across the state.
The speed limit corrections implemented during my tenure in traffic services (mostly increases of up to 15 miles per hour) impacted millions of vehicle miles traveled per day. Over that same time frame, Michigan's traffic fatality numbers plummeted, by about a third. In conjunction with my counterparts, I was recognized for those efforts with two Governor's Traffic Safety Awards for Outstanding Contributions to Traffic Safety.
Many of these corrections were on urban freeways, typically correcting under-posted speed limits of 55 miles per hour to 70 miles per hour. 70 was the nearest multiple of 5 miles per hour to the 85th percentile speed, and closely matched the prevailing, safe traffic speeds on these freeways.
In all cases, we conducted after-studies to determine the effect of the changes, and to see if we needed to revise or reverse them. Safety was our overriding concern.
Despite our openness to adjusting our engineering changes or even completely reversing them if necessary, we found that our results were consistent with the long standing national studies on speed limit establishment:
- No 85th percentile speeds increased by any significant amount, and some actually decreased after increasing the speed limit 15 MPH.
- Overall, the crash rates on the freeways in question trended downward, and our fatality rate declined strongly statewide.
- Rush hour traffic congestion on the urban freeway segments we corrected by speed limit increases, was dramatically reduced or eliminated.
- Reduced statistical variance measured in the traffic speeds, matched the overall impression of greater vehicle speed uniformity, with reduced conflicts between vehicles and a more pleasant driving environment as a result.
- The ONLY empirical measure that changed dramatically was a huge increase in compliance with the new speed limits.
As you would expect from these results, we never had to roll back any of the speed limit changes we made. With continued after-studies now many years after the changes, the results remain the same.
To summarize the dilemma related to speed limit changes, perceptions and expectation simply don't match with the results.
People worry that vehicles/drivers will increase travel speeds by the amount of the speed limit increase. The best research solidly refutes this assertion, and in the hundreds of the road segments where we increased the speed limit up to 15 miles per hour, traffic travel speeds never increased significantly.
Travel speeds are made more CONSISTENT across the board, which is why crashes are normally reduced, and the crashes that do occur, do NOT tend to involve higher speeds than they did prior to the speed limit increase. The result is INCREASED SAFETY.
Road authorities are often concerned about an engineering factor called "Design Speed." Interestingly, when citing this concern, they miss the point that if the speed limit is far below normal travel speeds for that segment of the roadway, they have usually already failed to design for the prevailing speeds at which traffic is traveling SAFELY. Design speed is a highly misused and misunderstood topic that should not deter road authorities from maximizing traffic safety through the use of optimal speed limits.
Upward speed limit corrections open the door for posting ADVISORY signs where road conditions warrant them, while increasing compliance with the speed limit. Artificially low speed limits, on the other hand, incite disregard for traffic controls as a whole, and DON'T allow for some advisory signs that drivers may really need in some cases to alert them to potentially hazardous design features of the roadway.
As you can see, there is much more to this extremely important, and somewhat counter-intuitive topic than time allows in this forum. I am more than happy to answer any questions you have of me, and I thank you very much for your time and your consideration of this topic that is of such great importance to the safety of your constituents and road users.
Respectfully submitted,
Thad V. Peterson, F/Lt., Retired
Michigan Department of State Police
FYI, the audio from the board meeting can be downloaded here (December 2014 Board Meeting -file 1of2):
http://www.illinoistollway.com/about-the-tollway/board-information/web-cast-audio-archives
On a somewhat related note, the 45 mph section of I-80 through Joliet has been raised to 55, at least for westbound. Now if IDOT would only cut back the legnth of that 55 mph section so it is only for the area near the Des Plaines River and does not drag on east of Briggs Street.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 28, 2014, 09:07:10 PM
On a somewhat related note, the 45 mph section of I-80 through Joliet has been raised to 55, at least for westbound. Now if IDOT would only cut back the legnth of that 55 mph section so it is only for the area near the Des Plaines River and does not drag on east of Briggs Street.
It's been like that (eastbound as well) for a couple years now, even before the statewide speed limit was increased. It's good that they increased it, everyone goes 60 on the bridge and 65 through the rest of that stretch anyway.
Goes into effect 1/1/15. 70MPH on all Interstates and toll roads & 65MPH on all 4+ lane divided (with more than paint) highways unless there is a speed restriction in place.
Of course, Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair, and Will counties can make up their own rules.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on December 30, 2014, 10:54:32 PM
Goes into effect 1/1/15. 70MPH on all Interstates and toll roads & 65MPH on all 4+ lane divided (with more than paint) highways unless there is a speed restriction in place.
Of course, Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair, and Will counties can make up their own rules.
Will County will not. The county board and county executive have already decided that they cannot counter state law, and they don't see any reason to create any exemption.
Kudos to Will County.
Here's an update on the Chicago metro area.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/03/12/speed-limit-could-go-to-60-on-tri-state-reagan-and-veterans-tollways/
Speed Limit Could Go To 60 On Tri-State, Reagan, And Veterans TollwaysQuoteCHICAGO (CBS) — An Illinois State Toll Highway Authority committee has recommended increasing speed limits on parts of three tollways.
Illinois Tollway executive director Kristi Lafleur said, after several years of study by the agency's expert traffic safety engineers, officials can safely raise the speed limit from 55 to 60 mph on parts of the Tri-State, Reagan Memorial, and Veterans Memorial tollways.
If it's true a driver is unlikely to get a speeding ticket if he or she is not going more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit, as state troopers have said, speeds could be closer to 70 mph on parts of the Tollway system where the speed limit now is 55.
The increase needs approval from the Tollway's board of directors and the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Some parts of the Jane Addams Memorial and Reagan Memorial tollways outside of the Chicago area already have speed limits of 70 mph, and would not be affected by this move.
They were already authorized for speeds up to 70 mph back in December, my last update in this thread. They do not want to go all the way to 70 and want to keep some segments unchanged.
^ Very disappointing that they won't even raise it up to 65. Do they really want the Illinois Legislature to write the law so it specifically says the speed limit on the roads known as the Tri-State Tollway, Regan Tollway, and Veterans Memorial Tollway is 70?
(Of course if the Illinois Legislature did it spell out the roadway names, the Toll Authority would probably try to rename them so they could keep the speed limits down).
EDIT: Found the official press release from the Tollway. Link (http://www.illinoistollway.com/documents/10157/3f72faf4-d0a1-4151-8b75-de6d3ff07879)
The included maps shows no increase to 70 for I-90 from I-39 to around Randall Road.
I'm surprised they're increasing anything at all. But 70mph for cars starts at IL-47 not the Kane/Dekalb County line that needs to be corrected in the press release. I don't see why they weren't studying I-90 between Elgin and Rockford in this time too they finished the widening there before 2015.
Doesn't surprise me at all that they're using said loopholes - disgusting corruption
Quote from: dave069 on March 13, 2015, 05:33:50 PM
I'm surprised they're increasing anything at all. But 70mph for cars starts at IL-47 not the Kane/Dekalb County line that needs to be corrected in the press release. I don't see why they weren't studying I-90 between Elgin and Rockford in this time too they finished the widening there before 2015.
Should honestly be Orchard Road as the dividing line for 55/70 mph on I-88, even though no one adheres to it anyways
For Pete's sake, just raise all the tollways to 70 mph already! :banghead:
Quote from: adamlanfort on March 15, 2015, 02:42:39 PM
For Pete's sake, just raise all the tollways to 70 mph already! :banghead:
Welcome to Chicago man, You'll never hear the end of it.
I hear Minneapolis is better :P
Minneapolis has more 60-65 roads then Chicago. Honestly 70mph on the Illinois Tollway wouldn't be a problem even in the suburbs. I was on I-88 this Sunday and everyone was doing about 70-75.
Good to see both sides of the debate in the media. I bolded the pro-70 side (aka our side lol).
edit - be sure to read the comments on the article!
https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150323/news/150329643/?fb_action_ids=692243107565485&fb_action_types=og.comments
Oberweis, tollway showdown emerging over 70 mphQuoteNew speed limits of 60 to 65 mph on toll roads proposed by agency officials have steamed state Sen. Jim Oberweis, sponsor of a 2014 law setting a 70 mph limit, and point to a showdown in Springfield.
This Thursday, Illinois tollway directors will discuss suggested changes for the Tri-State (I-294/I-94), the Reagan Memorial (I-88) and Veterans Memorial (I-355) tollways. The recommendations made by a tollway committee offer a range of speeds from the current 55 mph to 60 mph and 65 mph.
Oberweis thinks his law trumps the agency's claims that it has the legal right to set speeds, and he wants to call them on the carpet.
Ignoring the 70 mph policy is a "blatant disregard of the will of the people and a misapplication of an overwhelmingly supported law that is passed," said Oberweis, a Sugar Grove Republican.
"The safety of Tollway customers is our highest priority," spokeswoman Wendy Abrams said.
Tollway leaders contend traffic engineers prioritized safety and used crash rates, road design and how drivers interact with exits and entrances to develop the new standards.
"We looked at travel patterns and the speeds people drive at and the common speed and the differential," Executive Director Kristi Lafleur said. "That data is all taken into account as we set the speeds."
"It may look like patchwork on a map, but when you're driving (these are) logical transition points," said Jeff Hochmuth, a traffic engineer with tollway consultant CDM Smith.
Oberweis intends to ask the Senate's Transportation Committee chairman to hold a hearing in Springfield where tollway officials can explain their actions.
"The law makes it very clear, the speed is 70 mph on all tollways unless they do a legitimate study indicating 70 mph is not safe," he said.
Tollway leaders countered that the Illinois Vehicle Code empowers the tollway to raise its maximum speed limits after engineering and traffic investigations.
"If a safe and reasonable increase in the speed limit is warranted," the tollway then obtains approvals from IDOT, the tollway board of directors and a state commission on administrative rules, Abrams said.
Oberweis disagreed. He cited a widely used standard of setting speeds by calculating what 85 percent of drivers are traveling at under good conditions. That would place average toll road speeds at around 72 to 73, he said.
Tollway officials countered that the "85th percentile is the starting point when determining speed limits."
CDM Smith reviewed the policies of 18 states for which speed limit-setting procedures are publicly available and could not find a single state that used the 85th percentile speed independent of any other factors, Abrams said.
Wheaton resident Steve Doner, a National Motorists Association member, thinks the tollway did not use speed-calculating software from the U.S. Department of Transportation properly.
If the agency's new limits are put in place, the results will be speed traps and dangerous conditions for those who follow the posted limits, such as student drivers, he warned.
"The tollway's recommendation of 55 mph to 60 mph limits for most of the urban tollways does not stand up to independent analysis and scrutiny," Doner said.
You should know
Here are the proposed changes:
- On the Tri-State: increase speed from 55 mph to 60 mph between I-57 and I-55; increase speed from 55 mph to 60 mph between Touhy and Deerfield Road; increase speed for cars and buses from 55 mph to 65 mph between Deerfield and Stearns School Road near Gurnee Mills.
The rationale was based on a high northbound crash rate approaching Grand Avenue of 1.27 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled compared to a statewide average of .90, Abrams said.
- On I-88: increase speed from 55 mph to 60 mph from the Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) to Route 31; increase speed from 55 mph to 65 mph between Route 31 and Orchard Road; increase speed from 55 mph to 65 mph between Orchard and the Kane/DeKalb County line.
Abrams noted on I-88 from Route 31 to Route 47 in Kane County, the worst section has a crash rate of 1.70 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled.
The statewide rural interstate rate is .43.
- On I-355: increase speed from 55 mph to 60 mph between I-55 and Army Trail Road.
A center section of the Tri-State between Touhy and I-55 would stay at 55 mph, under the plan. So would the Edens Spur, which has a high crash rate of 2.07 crashes per million vehicle miles, Abrams said.
Currently, speeds on most toll roads in the six-county region are 55 mph, although 65 mph is legal in a few less-populated areas.
Central Tri-State Tollway needs to be at least 60-65 if not 70.
also Deerfield till WI state line at least 70 (likely waiting for WI to go 70)
Now a full 70 also drives the way for a REAL 55 work zone speed limit that people are more like to comply with as well. And if the roads do go to 60-65-70 then no 45 work zones.
45 mph work zones are universal in IL.
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 25, 2015, 12:56:11 PM
45 mph work zones are universal in IL.
And universally ignored.
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 25, 2015, 12:56:11 PM
45 mph work zones are universal in IL.
And universally ignored.
They are in most states. Thus the reason for all the double fine and safety zone laws throughout the US.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2015, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 25, 2015, 12:56:11 PM
45 mph work zones are universal in IL.
And universally ignored.
They are in most states. Thus the reason for all the double fine and safety zone laws throughout the US.
However, in Illinois they are in effect 24/7, regardless of whether work is going on or not. This sort of crap causes serious resentment and causes people to just ignore the limit. A smarter system, and one that seems to actually be obeyed better is what Michigan uses. Michigan lowers speeds from 70 to 60 in the zone, but 45 only where and when workers are present and not separated from traffic by a concrete barrier (i.e. cones/barrels only). Illinois uses 45 24/7 even when there is a barrier.
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2015, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 25, 2015, 12:56:11 PM
45 mph work zones are universal in IL.
And universally ignored.
They are in most states. Thus the reason for all the double fine and safety zone laws throughout the US.
However, in Illinois they are in effect 24/7, regardless of whether work is going on or not. This sort of crap causes serious resentment and causes people to just ignore the limit. A smarter system, and one that seems to actually be obeyed better is what Michigan uses. Michigan lowers speeds from 70 to 60 in the zone, but 45 only where and when workers are present and not separated from traffic by a concrete barrier (i.e. cones/barrels only). Illinois uses 45 24/7 even when there is a barrier.
there are some 55 work zones also parts of the I-90 work zone has rock a boat mix of 45 and 55 work zones.
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2015, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 25, 2015, 12:56:11 PM
45 mph work zones are universal in IL.
And universally ignored.
They are in most states. Thus the reason for all the double fine and safety zone laws throughout the US.
However, in Illinois they are in effect 24/7, regardless of whether work is going on or not. This sort of crap causes serious resentment and causes people to just ignore the limit. A smarter system, and one that seems to actually be obeyed better is what Michigan uses. Michigan lowers speeds from 70 to 60 in the zone, but 45 only where and when workers are present and not separated from traffic by a concrete barrier (i.e. cones/barrels only). Illinois uses 45 24/7 even when there is a barrier.
I know you hate everything about Illinois, but it's not just Illinois. NJ and Delaware for example have similar speed limit and 24/7 restrictions.
I should probably post the map of the proposed changes. All the non-70 stretches have been posted at 55 mph since the 1974 national double nickel.
For cars and buses.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2015/03/TollwaySpeedCars.jpg)
For trucks.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2015/03/TollwaySpeedTrucks.jpg)
Here was one of our opposing articles:
"Traffic Safety Activists Say Tollway Suppressing Speed Limits"
http://theexpiredmeter.com/2015/03/traffic-safety-activists-say-tollway-suppressing-speed-limits/
Doesn't matter to me. I go 77 to 78 on them already anyway. I had a roommate who took his stock Jetta up to 100 on the Eisenhower east of Harlem, just because.
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2015, 04:31:18 PM
Doesn't matter to me. I go 77 to 78 on them already anyway. I had a roommate who took his stock Jetta up to 100 on the Eisenhower east of Harlem, just because.
They don't pull over anyone for 70 or less anyway. A cop got his lesson once in Cook County when he went to court to face some tickets he issued to motorists going less than 70 miles per hour. The judge asked everyone who got a ticket for 70 or less to stand up. The judge promptly dismissed the tickets
en masse, leaving the cop stunned.
As it is, I've been driving along the tollways at 70-72, minding my own business and get my doors (all four) blown off by a state trooper going 80+ who never even so much as batted an eye in my direction.
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 04:59:52 PM
They don't pull over anyone for 70 or less anyway. A cop got his lesson once in Cook County when he went to court to face some tickets he issued to motorists going less than 70 miles per hour. The judge asked everyone who got a ticket for 70 or less to stand up. The judge promptly dismissed the tickets en masse, leaving the cop stunned.
Man, where was that judge when I got my one-and-only speeding ticket? For 65 inna 60, on the I-5 express lanes in Seattle, at 7:30 AM on a sunny weekend morning?
Probably Chicago.
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2015, 04:31:18 PM
Doesn't matter to me. I go 77 to 78 on them already anyway. I had a roommate who took his stock Jetta up to 100 on the Eisenhower east of Harlem, just because.
They don't pull over anyone for 70 or less anyway. A cop got his lesson once in Cook County when he went to court to face some tickets he issued to motorists going less than 70 miles per hour. The judge asked everyone who got a ticket for 70 or less to stand up. The judge promptly dismissed the tickets en masse, leaving the cop stunned.
As it is, I've been driving along the tollways at 70-72, minding my own business and get my doors (all four) blown off by a state trooper going 80+ who never even so much as batted an eye in my direction.
Yeah, the de-facto speed limit to actually get pulled over on metro Chicago tollways seems to be around 80 mph.
QuoteOne trooper told of traffic court judges who asked everyone to stand if they were ticketed for 70 mph or less – then dismissed them all. At that point, the officer said, "my tolerance level turned to 80."
Said another: "I didn't even pay attention to a car unless they were in the upper 70s."
source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-17/opinion/ct-enforce-speed-limits-edit-1217-jm-20131217_1_speed-limit-70-mph-state-troopers
Chicago Tribune analysis of speeding citations:
(https://i.imgur.com/XSJVqvV.png)
source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-drivers-speeding-on-the-illinois-tollway-map-20140827-htmlstory.html
And check out these two clips of someone pacing state police southbound on I-294 (posted 55 mph) during their commute.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=231930260315682&set=vb.198812230294152&type=2&theater
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=446701128838593&set=vb.198812230294152&type=2&theater
Update from today. Sun Times covered it well...
Tollway Board OKs higher speed limits; not high enough for Oberweis
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/473031/tollway-board-increase-speed-limits
Quote from: bahnburner on March 26, 2015, 11:12:32 PM
Update from today. Sun Times covered it well...
Tollway Board OKs higher speed limits; not high enough for Oberweis
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/473031/tollway-board-increase-speed-limits
I don't agree with Oberweis on everything, but I agree with him 100% here. No one goes 60 mph on these toll roads.
Quote from: bahnburner on March 25, 2015, 10:56:14 PM
And check out these two clips of someone pacing state police southbound on I-294 (posted 55 mph) during their commute.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=231930260315682&set=vb.198812230294152&type=2&theater
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=446701128838593&set=vb.198812230294152&type=2&theater
If a cop was going 55 mph during rush hour, clogging up the highway, would this person be posting video of the ensuing traffic congestion?
I love the colorful map of speed limits, you'll go from 70 to 55 to 60 in some cases..... :rolleyes:
Just drove on I-355 tonight and I can confirm that a speed limit of 60 is now posted from I-55 to Army Trail Rd. I didn't see any more cars obeying the speed limit than before, other than cars in the slow lane. 60 mph was already the actual speed driven in the slow lane.
Quote from: dietermoreno on April 05, 2015, 12:52:43 AM
Just drove on I-355 tonight and I can confirm that a speed limit of 60 is now posted from I-55 to Army Trail Rd. I didn't see any more cars obeying the speed limit than before, other than cars in the slow lane. 60 mph was already the actual speed driven in the slow lane.
So why IS army trail to I-290 still 55?
^ Beacause Army Trail to I-290 is under IDOT jurisdiction, not ISTHA.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 05, 2015, 09:59:55 PM
^ Beacause Army Trail to I-290 is under IDOT jurisdiction, not ISTHA.
odd but I-290 from I-355 to I-90 is 60 now.
Actually that's what I meant, I-290 from Higgans Rd to the split with I-290 and I-355. Opps. I drove I-290 and I-355 again tonight and I noticed that the speed limit is still 55 when both I-355 begins and when the tollway begins. I was assuming the speed limit was changed to 60 on the tollway when I saw it posted at 60 in Elk Grove, but its not. It appears that IDOT raised the speed limit to 60 to match the tollway raising the speed limit to 60, which is supposed to happen, but no signs have been changed yet.
But it is odd that IDOT did not raise the speed to 60 between I-290 and Army Trail as well.
IDOT actually lowered the speed limit to 45 on Rt 53 north of Dundee Rd. I'm not sure if this is in anticipation of the Rt 53 extension being constructed to a speed limit of 45, or if this is a speed trap. A state trooper likes to park underneath the bridge in the median at Dundee.
Quote from: dietermoreno on April 05, 2015, 11:03:36 PM
Actually that's what I meant, I-290 from Higgans Rd to the split with I-290 and I-355. Opps. I drove I-290 and I-355 again tonight and I noticed that the speed limit is still 55 when both I-355 begins and when the tollway begins. I was assuming the speed limit was changed to 60 on the tollway when I saw it posted at 60 in Elk Grove, but its not. It appears that IDOT raised the speed limit to 60 to match the tollway raising the speed limit to 60, which is supposed to happen, but no signs have been changed yet.
But it is odd that IDOT did not raise the speed to 60 between I-290 and Army Trail as well.
IDOT actually lowered the speed limit to 45 on Rt 53 north of Dundee Rd. I'm not sure if this is in anticipation of the Rt 53 extension being constructed to a speed limit of 45, or if this is a speed trap. A state trooper likes to park underneath the bridge in the median at Dundee.
Or that 45 is to just to try to slow down traffic before the end of the road ramp speeds are 35 there.
Rt 53 extension being constructed to a speed limit of 45??? come on us 12 has 45-55 parts to it.
Really wish they'd at least do 65 on tollways and freeways outside 294.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 06, 2015, 09:58:32 AM
Rt 53 extension being constructed to a speed limit of 45??? come on us 12 has 45-55 parts to it.
It is unrealistic and, frankly, absurd to expect that traffic will follow a 45 mph speed limit on such a road. Only a politician would find it logical in any way. Any the question remains: what good is a 4-lane "parkway" design anyhow? Why spend all the money and go to all the trouble of building a new highway only to have it be obsolete on day one.
It should be a standard six-lane freeway with a 65 mph speed limit. And, getting back OT, when the heck is the ISTHA going to get with it and increase the speed limit on the Tri-State through Lake County to at least 65 mph? The average speed exceeds that already and the road itself could easily be given a 70 mph limit, given it's design and excellent condition.
All that you do by having unrealistic speed limits is to encourage MORE speeding because the average motorist stops taking speed limits seriously. This seems to be a problem in states like IL, WI, NY, CT, MA, RI, etc. Post unrealistically low limits so that people are trained to think that 55=70 or 35=50. Stupid.
I've heard that speed limits in Illinois are set for the worst case scenario. Say, a blizzard in rush hour.
What if speed limits varied with the season, so the speed limits would be more logical for drivers to follow?
If I was in charge of raising tollway speed limits, I'd change the speed limit to 80 on I-90 normally and speed limit 65 when snow covered, between Randall Rd and Rockford. And change to speed limit 70 on I-90 normally from Randall Rd to 294 and speed limit 60 when snow covered. Also, variable speed limits on overhead digital signs that override the default speed limit in rush hour to lower the speed limit if there is a crash ahead or parking lot ahead.
Quote from: dietermoreno on April 13, 2015, 02:06:31 AM
I've heard that speed limits in Illinois are set for the worst case scenario. Say, a blizzard in rush hour.
Some states have the words "when conditions permit" under the top speed limit. That said, in most places, the law is exactly that. So there's no need to alter the speed limit for things like snowstorms because you can (and likely will) get a ticket for going 55 on an ice-covered freeway. Driving too fast for the conditions, or something along those lines, is what you'd be charged with.
No, the present speed limits are simply absurd as they stand now. A joke and, thus, not taken seriously.
Quote from: dietermoreno on April 13, 2015, 02:06:31 AM
I've heard that speed limits in Illinois are set for the worst case scenario. Say, a blizzard in rush hour.
What if speed limits varied with the season, so the speed limits would be more logical for drivers to follow?
If I was in charge of raising tollway speed limits, I'd change the speed limit to 80 on I-90 normally and speed limit 65 when snow covered, between Randall Rd and Rockford. And change to speed limit 70 on I-90 normally from Randall Rd to 294 and speed limit 60 when snow covered. Also, variable speed limits on overhead digital signs that override the default speed limit in rush hour to lower the speed limit if there is a crash ahead or parking lot ahead.
65 when it is snow covered? No. Way to fast for conditions and with the way some people drive around here, I don't trust them to not lose control with a posted SNOW 65 speed. I drive professionally in Chicagoland. People who have lived here their whole lives forget way to easily of how to drive in snow. Back in February when we had a freezing rain turn to snow situation, even though 88 was plowed reasonably, there were at least a dozen spin outs and people hitting the center wall at 355. And you want to propose a high speed than 55 in snow conditions? Sorry. Not me. When it's dry, 65-70 is plenty.
^^ As for how fast one should go in rain or snow conditions, that should be driver dependent. I've seen some around here who are total idiots. Then, on the other extreme are those of us who can actually handle those conditions at higher speeds. Don't punish the capable due to the lack of skill of the idiots.
Quote from: Brandon on April 14, 2015, 06:37:40 AM
^^ As for how fast one should go in rain or snow conditions, that should be driver dependent. I've seen some around here who are total idiots. Then, on the other extreme are those of us who can actually handle those conditions at higher speeds. Don't punish the capable due to the lack of skill of the idiots.
^^^^^ This
The speed limit is supposed to be the "maximum" allowable speed, which implies a dry road and proper visibility. Speeds should be reduced for rain, snow, poor visibility, etc. Which does not conflict - in the least - with my assertion that the present speed limits are absurdly low and should be changed.
Utah is an example of a state that gets it: their rural freeways are posted as high as 80 mph. But 80 means 80 and 75 means 75. Go 3 or 4 over and you may well get stopped because the highway patrol there feels that the speed limit is reasonable and is set where it needs to be. I know a UHP trooper and he told me exactly that. And, I can assure you that 80 in a snowstorm will get you a nice fat citation.
Here in Illinois, the speed limits have been set so low for so long that no one takes them seriously. That also leads to idiocy when the conditions are poor.
Brandon and ET, while I can appreciate your confidence n your abilities in inclement weather, that still doesn't change the fact that there are idiots abound in the snow. And since I can't force them to stay home, having a SNOW limit higher speed limit than 55, that dietermoreno suggested, to accommodate the skilled drivers in snow is not only dangerous but incredibly stupid. Talk to the troopers and professional drivers and see what they say. The reality is in 4 inches of snow no one should be doing better than 45.
Do you want this to happen? Remember this north of Milwaukee on US 41 a year ago? Look at the road conditions prior to this pile up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgvOHnujspg
You are just asking for this to happen more often.
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
No matter what the speed limit is set at, or how dumb or smart people think they are, or how well you think you can drive in snow, nothing will overcome the laws of physics. I've slid into the ditch going 5 mph in my neighborhood.
Doesn't stop politicians from being large hams, but that's a different topic...
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
They did? More like most of the states just ignored the 55 mph crappola and ticketed only for speeds above 65 or 70.
Quote from: Brandon on April 15, 2015, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
They did? More like most of the states just ignored the 55 mph crappola and ticketed only for speeds above 65 or 70.
The ticket point moved from 70 mph to 60 mph. It was enforced pretty vigorously for the first 7 years or so. Then the fuel shortages ended (for a while) and the new Reagan administration was not going to be quick to withhold highway funding just because of lax speed enforcement.
I think a "snow" limit is ridiculous. How do you possibly enforce that? A dry, light snow doesn't cause any driving issues, and therefore cars would be - at best - driving slower than necessary and, at worst, driving dangerously because some will do the "snow" limit, and others won't, thinking that it doesn't apply. On the same token, roads can be slippery long after the snow cover is gone.
There is a law that works. It's called "Driving too fast for conditions". It applies in this situation.
Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 15, 2015, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
They did? More like most of the states just ignored the 55 mph crappola and ticketed only for speeds above 65 or 70.
The ticket point moved from 70 mph to 60 mph. It was enforced pretty vigorously for the first 7 years or so. Then the fuel shortages ended (for a while) and the new Reagan administration was not going to be quick to withhold highway funding just because of lax speed enforcement.
That's a dramatic overgeneralization. Many states in the west continued enforcing at 70, giving very cheap, energy wasting tickets that weren't even moving violations to those that chose to go between 55 and 70. As you might suspect, officers didn't bother wasting their time to pull people over on those grounds very often.
Quote from: corco on April 15, 2015, 02:26:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 15, 2015, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
They did? More like most of the states just ignored the 55 mph crappola and ticketed only for speeds above 65 or 70.
The ticket point moved from 70 mph to 60 mph. It was enforced pretty vigorously for the first 7 years or so. Then the fuel shortages ended (for a while) and the new Reagan administration was not going to be quick to withhold highway funding just because of lax speed enforcement.
That's a dramatic overgeneralization. Many states in the west continued enforcing at 70, giving very cheap, energy wasting tickets that weren't even moving violations to those that chose to go between 55 and 70. As you might suspect, officers didn't bother wasting their time to pull people over on those grounds very often.
States didn't start changing the tickets to "energy violations" until the early 80s, when 55 had already been the law for 7 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/26/travel/practical-traveler-the-55-mph-speed-limit.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/26/travel/practical-traveler-the-55-mph-speed-limit.html)
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
People got the idea the speed limits have nothing to do with safety. And in many states, they're still right!
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
If nothing else has happened by now it will not happen - ever.
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I just assumed the Lake Co. portion of I94 would not change to 70, but remain 55 south of 132 and 65 north of 132. I drive that route every day so I will post if it gets changed.
Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2015, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: corco on April 15, 2015, 02:26:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 15, 2015, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
They did? More like most of the states just ignored the 55 mph crappola and ticketed only for speeds above 65 or 70.
The ticket point moved from 70 mph to 60 mph. It was enforced pretty vigorously for the first 7 years or so. Then the fuel shortages ended (for a while) and the new Reagan administration was not going to be quick to withhold highway funding just because of lax speed enforcement.
That's a dramatic overgeneralization. Many states in the west continued enforcing at 70, giving very cheap, energy wasting tickets that weren't even moving violations to those that chose to go between 55 and 70. As you might suspect, officers didn't bother wasting their time to pull people over on those grounds very often.
States didn't start changing the tickets to "energy violations" until the early 80s, when 55 had already been the law for 7 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/26/travel/practical-traveler-the-55-mph-speed-limit.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/26/travel/practical-traveler-the-55-mph-speed-limit.html)
One of my co-workers got an "energy wasting" ticket on US 93 south of Kalispell, MT in the summer of 1979. He was doing about 85 mph when he was stopped (speed limit was 55). $5 fine, nothing on his record.
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I-88 is 70 mph west of Route 56.
Quote from: rlb2024 on June 24, 2015, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2015, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: corco on April 15, 2015, 02:26:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2015, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 15, 2015, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 07:47:57 PM
Changing speed limits will do nothing to fix that. You cannot fix behavior using new laws. It's that's simple.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for, to change people's desire to do socially unacceptable things. 55 mph national speed limit, people caught on. Some of them, it took a couple of tickets.
They did? More like most of the states just ignored the 55 mph crappola and ticketed only for speeds above 65 or 70.
The ticket point moved from 70 mph to 60 mph. It was enforced pretty vigorously for the first 7 years or so. Then the fuel shortages ended (for a while) and the new Reagan administration was not going to be quick to withhold highway funding just because of lax speed enforcement.
That's a dramatic overgeneralization. Many states in the west continued enforcing at 70, giving very cheap, energy wasting tickets that weren't even moving violations to those that chose to go between 55 and 70. As you might suspect, officers didn't bother wasting their time to pull people over on those grounds very often.
States didn't start changing the tickets to "energy violations" until the early 80s, when 55 had already been the law for 7 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/26/travel/practical-traveler-the-55-mph-speed-limit.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/26/travel/practical-traveler-the-55-mph-speed-limit.html)
One of my co-workers got an "energy wasting" ticket on US 93 south of Kalispell, MT in the summer of 1979. He was doing about 85 mph when he was stopped (speed limit was 55). $5 fine, nothing on his record.
Interesting, thanks for letting me know.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 25, 2015, 01:15:01 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I-88 is 70 mph west of Route 56.
ISTM that if it was reduced at the county line, that isn't much further in. Chicken-shits.
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 24, 2015, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I just assumed the Lake Co. portion of I94 would not change to 70, but remain 55 south of 132 and 65 north of 132. I drive that route every day so I will post if it gets changed.
Does the speed limit really matter on that part of I-94? Even though it's signed at 55, a person driving 70 would be the slowest guy on the road.
The full Tri-State Tollway needs to be 70. other when it's jammed up you can easily do 60-75.
Quote from: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 24, 2015, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I just assumed the Lake Co. portion of I94 would not change to 70, but remain 55 south of 132 and 65 north of 132. I drive that route every day so I will post if it gets changed.
Does the speed limit really matter on that part of I-94? Even though it's signed at 55, a person driving 70 would be the slowest guy on the road.
You may be right on the weekends and during non-peak times, but at the times that I'm driving on it I'm lucky to be averaging 40mph, and hardly anyone goes faster than 70 because they know they'll be forced to slow down (maybe stop) shortly anyway.
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 26, 2015, 12:07:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 24, 2015, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I just assumed the Lake Co. portion of I94 would not change to 70, but remain 55 south of 132 and 65 north of 132. I drive that route every day so I will post if it gets changed.
Does the speed limit really matter on that part of I-94? Even though it's signed at 55, a person driving 70 would be the slowest guy on the road.
You may be right on the weekends and during non-peak times, but at the times that I'm driving on it I'm lucky to be averaging 40mph, and hardly anyone goes faster than 70 because they know they'll be forced to slow down (maybe stop) shortly anyway.
Just to make clear, I'm not opposed to raising the speed limit on the Tri-State and I'll admit that usually when I drive it, it's at night or on the weekend. But I do notice that traffic is faster in the 55 zone in Illinois than the 65 zone in Wisconsin, probably because Wisconsin enforces the speed limit more than Illinois does on the Tollway when I drove that stretch multiple times. Have not been on 94 south of Milwaukee since it was signed at 70 in Wisconsin yet to see if there is a difference in average speed. When traffic is moving, the slowest person in the 55 zone is driving 15 over and no one drives anywhere close to the speed limit.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 25, 2015, 01:15:01 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I-88 is 70 mph west of Route 56.
I-94 was supposed to become a 65 north of Deerfield Road. So I-88's 70 zone starts at the split with 56 now? I thought they were going to keep it a 65 between 47 and 31. Last fall the 70 started once I passed 47.
Quote from: dave069 on June 26, 2015, 07:02:44 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 25, 2015, 01:15:01 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I-88 is 70 mph west of Route 56.
I-94 was supposed to become a 65 north of Deerfield Road. So I-88's 70 zone starts at the split with 56 now? I thought they were going to keep it a 65 between 47 and 31. Last fall the 70 started once I passed 47.
88 is 55 east of Orchard Road, 65 between Orchard Rd and IL-47, and 70 west of IL-47
Quote from: ET21 on June 27, 2015, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 26, 2015, 07:02:44 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 25, 2015, 01:15:01 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I-88 is 70 mph west of Route 56.
I-94 was supposed to become a 65 north of Deerfield Road. So I-88's 70 zone starts at the split with 56 now? I thought they were going to keep it a 65 between 47 and 31. Last fall the 70 started once I passed 47.
88 is 55 east of Orchard Road, 65 between Orchard Rd and IL-47, and 70 west of IL-47
That's what I thought the zones were. Although the tollway said they were extending the 65 zone to IL-31 and I-88 between IL-31 and I-294 would be 60.
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 26, 2015, 12:07:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 24, 2015, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I just assumed the Lake Co. portion of I94 would not change to 70, but remain 55 south of 132 and 65 north of 132. I drive that route every day so I will post if it gets changed.
Does the speed limit really matter on that part of I-94? Even though it's signed at 55, a person driving 70 would be the slowest guy on the road.
You may be right on the weekends and during non-peak times, but at the times that I'm driving on it I'm lucky to be averaging 40mph, and hardly anyone goes faster than 70 because they know they'll be forced to slow down (maybe stop) shortly anyway.
Here's my experience with Chicago (driving from Indiana to Milwaukee). Usually everyone is doing 80 and then you have to slam on your brakes because every car in front of you starts moving at 20 mph. I typically take 94 through Chicago because the toll road is usually congested too and 94 is free. Why pay for the same traffic problems? Whenever 94 and 41 split off I typically take 41 to Wisconsin, again to avoid tolls. I don't think US 41 is that bad. Of course it takes longer that way then on 94, but the tolls are kind of expensive. I remember something like $1.50 at each toll booth and that was several years ago.
Quote from: peterj920 on June 26, 2015, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 26, 2015, 12:07:03 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on June 25, 2015, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on June 24, 2015, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: dave069 on June 24, 2015, 06:39:22 PM
Anyone see higher tollway speed limits yet? As of last Friday I-94 is still 55 at least up to IL-137. I'm also pretty sure I-90 between Elgin and Rockford hasn't been raised to 70 yet.
I just assumed the Lake Co. portion of I94 would not change to 70, but remain 55 south of 132 and 65 north of 132. I drive that route every day so I will post if it gets changed.
Does the speed limit really matter on that part of I-94? Even though it's signed at 55, a person driving 70 would be the slowest guy on the road.
You may be right on the weekends and during non-peak times, but at the times that I'm driving on it I'm lucky to be averaging 40mph, and hardly anyone goes faster than 70 because they know they'll be forced to slow down (maybe stop) shortly anyway.
Just to make clear, I'm not opposed to raising the speed limit on the Tri-State and I'll admit that usually when I drive it, it's at night or on the weekend. But I do notice that traffic is faster in the 55 zone in Illinois than the 65 zone in Wisconsin, probably because Wisconsin enforces the speed limit more than Illinois does on the Tollway when I drove that stretch multiple times. Have not been on 94 south of Milwaukee since it was signed at 70 in Wisconsin yet to see if there is a difference in average speed. When traffic is moving, the slowest person in the 55 zone is driving 15 over and no one drives anywhere close to the speed limit.
I was on 94 last night between Chicago and Milwaukee. Most people were doing 70-75 in the 70 except in the construction zone by Wis 20. It was interesting to see a lack of troopers in Racine and Kenosha Co like there normally is going both up and down.
Rail discussion moved to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15905.0... please take it there.
Weren't the speed limit increases in the suburbs supposed to be up by now? Does anyone know what the deal with that is? I haven't heard anything in the news about it so I assume everything is still 55.
Quote from: dave069 on August 02, 2015, 05:45:18 PM
Weren't the speed limit increases in the suburbs supposed to be up by now? Does anyone know what the deal with that is? I haven't heard anything in the news about it so I assume everything is still 55.
Suburbs I believe are to remain the same. I read somewhere about maybe pushing the Tri-State to 65, but don't remember where
I-88 parts of I-294 and the northern section of I-355 were all supposed to become 60mph zones. I-94 through Lake County was supposed to become a 65 as well. They said the postings would be done by late June or early July. Its August and nothing has been changed.
The speed limits would probably have been changed already if Rod Blagojevich was still in office.
Quinn vetos, Rauner cuts the funding. Go fib-iure :awesomeface:
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 04, 2015, 10:17:14 PM
The speed limits would probably have been changed already if Rod Blagojevich was still in office.
Rod Blagojevich was against higher speed limits though. When he was governor Illinois had a 65/55 split speed limit on rural interstates for cars and large trucks. Every time the legislature passed a bill to do away with the truck speed limit he vetoed it. He would have never let 70 on rural interstates through let alone anything over 55 near chicagoland.
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 04, 2015, 10:22:17 PM
Quinn vetos, Rauner cuts the funding. Go fib-iure :awesomeface:
The Tollway is also user-funded. Personally, I think the old and the new teams of directors just don't want to do it for whatever reason.
What I find appauling:
* Rockford:
** I-39 from I-90 to US-20 split is 65. ok, fine - it's mostly urban.
** I-90 N of I-39 to state line is 70. so is this.
** I-90 E of I-39 is 65, This is all rural to Elgin but 65 - What's wrong with this picture?
A little thought that could be a joke if it weren't true: What's the easiest way to tell that you're about to enter Cook County?
Speed Zone Ahead signs.
Yeah, that annoys me too, but not to the extent that the 40+ mile construction zone did when it was in effect.
Of course we can't expect "reasonable" speed limits
Illinois-home to 2 large auto insurance companies: State Farm and Allstate. Guess they're not lobbying Oberweis hard enough $$$ :-D
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 16, 2015, 10:03:53 PM
What I find appauling:
* Rockford:
** I-39 from I-90 to US-20 split is 65. ok, fine - it's mostly urban.
** I-90 N of I-39 to state line is 70. so is this.
** I-90 E of I-39 is 65, This is all rural to Elgin but 65 - What's wrong with this picture?
A little thought that could be a joke if it weren't true: What's the easiest way to tell that you're about to enter Cook County?
Speed Zone Ahead signs.
also I-94 from gurnee to WI needs to be 70 now
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 16, 2015, 10:03:53 PM
What I find appauling:
* Rockford:
** I-39 from I-90 to US-20 split is 65. ok, fine - it's mostly urban.
** I-90 N of I-39 to state line is 70. so is this.
** I-90 E of I-39 is 65, This is all rural to Elgin but 65 - What's wrong with this picture?
I agree 100% although the Illinois Tollway system's speed limits in general are too low with the exception of I-88 west of IL-47 and the I-90/39 Duplex.
I-88 needs to be at least 65 from IL-47 to I-290 / I-294 ramps.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 17, 2015, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 16, 2015, 10:03:53 PM
What I find appauling:
* Rockford:
** I-39 from I-90 to US-20 split is 65. ok, fine - it's mostly urban.
** I-90 N of I-39 to state line is 70. so is this.
** I-90 E of I-39 is 65, This is all rural to Elgin but 65 - What's wrong with this picture?
A little thought that could be a joke if it weren't true: What's the easiest way to tell that you're about to enter Cook County?
Speed Zone Ahead signs.
also I-94 from gurnee to WI needs to be 70 now
I drive there every day and if I recall correctly it took a very long time to change the speed limit from 55 to 65 on that stretch from Grand Ave (Gurnee) to the WI state line when that was first allowed. The funny thing is that right now everyone drives faster on that 7-8 miles in Illinois where the speed limit is 65 than they do on the 5 miles that I drive on in Wisconsin that just changed to 70mph this summer.
Quote from: Mrt90 on August 17, 2015, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 17, 2015, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 16, 2015, 10:03:53 PM
What I find appauling:
* Rockford:
** I-39 from I-90 to US-20 split is 65. ok, fine - it's mostly urban.
** I-90 N of I-39 to state line is 70. so is this.
** I-90 E of I-39 is 65, This is all rural to Elgin but 65 - What's wrong with this picture?
A little thought that could be a joke if it weren't true: What's the easiest way to tell that you're about to enter Cook County?
Speed Zone Ahead signs.
also I-94 from gurnee to WI needs to be 70 now
I drive there every day and if I recall correctly it took a very long time to change the speed limit from 55 to 65 on that stretch from Grand Ave (Gurnee) to the WI state line when that was first allowed. The funny thing is that right now everyone drives faster on that 7-8 miles in Illinois where the speed limit is 65 than they do on the 5 miles that I drive on in Wisconsin that just changed to 70mph this summer.
also it's 70 up till the part where it drops to 55.
Quote from: Mrt90 on August 17, 2015, 05:28:16 PM
The funny thing is that right now everyone drives faster on that 7-8 miles in Illinois where the speed limit is 65 than they do on the 5 miles that I drive on in Wisconsin that just changed to 70mph this summer.
There's definitely more traffic enforcement north of the state line. The Illinois plates going 20 over stick out way more up there.
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 19, 2015, 09:00:45 PM
Quote from: Mrt90 on August 17, 2015, 05:28:16 PM
The funny thing is that right now everyone drives faster on that 7-8 miles in Illinois where the speed limit is 65 than they do on the 5 miles that I drive on in Wisconsin that just changed to 70mph this summer.
There's definitely more traffic enforcement north of the state line. The Illinois plates going 20 over stick out way more up there.
That, and the Racine County Sheriff's Department has a real hard-on for going after any Illinois plated vehicle. It must excite them to wetness to stop one going 20 over.
For those wanting an update on the suburban tollway speed limit increases situation:
Short answer: Not much going on at the moment because of new tollway management.
The way I understand it is that Governor Rauner did some "housekeeping" with the tollway board, appointing four new members, including the new Chairman Bob Schillerstrom. The board of directors voted in Greg Bedalov as the new executive director, replacing Kristi Lafleur (who was very adamant about keeping speed limits artificially low).
Some interesting info when Schillerstrom was asked about speed limits around June:
QuoteThe tollway recently incurred the wrath of some state lawmakers by ignoring a new law increasing speed limits to 70 mph and introducing its own 60 mph and 65 mph policies in the metropolitan region.
Schillerstrom said he'll consult with tollway engineers and safety experts before weighing in.
"I'm not coming in with a feeling it's got to be 60 mph or 70 mph."
The bolded makes me hopeful for reasonable speed limits :coffee:
source: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150610/news/150619855/
Word on the street is that Schillerstrom is working on the issue, looking at info from previous meetings, including info that local NMA members provided. Not sure if they'll do another speed study, since the one that was provided had inherently flawed recommendations (didn't account prevailing speeds at all). So yeah, seems to be all we know so far.
I e-mailed them about I-90 between Elgin and Rockford and they said they would study that as well later this year. Hopefully they will actually do it. I'd expect the 70 MPH zone to get extended to IL-47.
Quote from: dave069 on August 23, 2015, 05:48:40 PM
I e-mailed them about I-90 between Elgin and Rockford and they said they would study that as well later this year. Hopefully they will actually do it. I'd expect the 70 MPH zone to get extended to IL-47I-294.
FTFY! :sombrero:
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 23, 2015, 10:11:15 PM
Quote from: dave069 on August 23, 2015, 05:48:40 PM
I e-mailed them about I-90 between Elgin and Rockford and they said they would study that as well later this year. Hopefully they will actually do it. I'd expect the 70 MPH zone to get extended to IL-47I-294.
FTFY! :sombrero:
Thank you! An extension of the 70 zone to I-294 would be even better but this is the Illinois Tollway we are dealing with. IL-47 will probably be the end of the 70 at least until 2017. I-90 is under construction between Randall Rd and I-294 so that segment will not see a speed limit increase until at least 2017.
Update:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQEX8ALT.jpg&hash=fb639ac7588eb7ee75e10306d1a5494b943a3ee7)
Here's the map again regarding the changes proposed by the previous administration that were supposed to happen this year.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2015/03/TollwaySpeedCars.jpg)
Can anyone confirm any sign changes shown on the map?
I-355 is now signed at 60MPH as indicated.
I-88 between Orchard Road(-ish) and I-290 was still signed at 55MPH when I last traveled it about a week ago.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 06, 2015, 09:57:14 PM
I-355 is now signed at 60MPH as indicated.
I-88 between Orchard Road(-ish) and I-290 was still signed at 55MPH when I last traveled it about a week ago.
The I-290 to toll road part as well? (I should be able to get on that on Wednesday this week)
what about the EOE any idea on what that will be when done?
I90 is correct, and I believe that after construction that limit will be changed to other parts along I90.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 06, 2015, 11:23:41 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 06, 2015, 09:57:14 PM
I-355 is now signed at 60MPH as indicated.
I-88 between Orchard Road(-ish) and I-290 was still signed at 55MPH when I last traveled it about a week ago.
The I-290 to toll road part as well? (I should be able to get on that on Wednesday this week)
Yes and no. Northbound, there are no speed limit signs until you get on I-290. Southbound has a 55 mph sign after Lake Street.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 17, 2015, 04:47:15 PM
I-88 needs to be at least 65 from IL-47 to I-290 / I-294 ramps.
I-88 is 55 from I-290 to Orchard Road, 65 from Orchard to IL-47, 70 west of IL-47
Quote from: Brandon on October 07, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 06, 2015, 11:23:41 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 06, 2015, 09:57:14 PM
I-355 is now signed at 60MPH as indicated.
I-88 between Orchard Road(-ish) and I-290 was still signed at 55MPH when I last traveled it about a week ago.
The I-290 to toll road part as well? (I should be able to get on that on Wednesday this week)
Yes and no. Northbound, there are no speed limit signs until you get on I-290. Southbound has a 55 mph sign after Lake Street.
It's 55 from I-290 to EOE both ways right now was 60 till the split before the work really kicked up there.
Someone in a local car spotting group spotted a 65 mph sign on the I-94 tristate tollway:
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12122460_3951974835017_4604615444271071860_n.jpg?oh=9999f4665795515b178c924a8299ad9c&oe=56935322)
I'd say that I-94 between Deerfield to Indiana could be 70. I may be crazy.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 09, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
I'd say that I-94 between Deerfield to Indiana could be 70. I may be crazy.
I think you missed the 2 in the 94.
maybe make that 60-65 parts of the city 55 (get rid of that 45 part)
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 10, 2015, 01:13:25 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 09, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
I'd say that I-94 between Deerfield to Indiana could be 70. I may be crazy.
I think you missed the 2 in the 94.
maybe make that 60-65 parts of the city 55 (get rid of that 45 part)
Yet that 45 part has Exits A-I and I-290 to deal with. Keep it 45
Saw some 60 MPH signs on I-294 south of I-55 yesterday. Central Tri-State is still 55 though. I assume it is also 60 MPH north of Touhy Ave and still 55 MPH south of I-57.
Quote from: dave069 on October 11, 2015, 11:38:51 AM
Saw some 60 MPH signs on I-294 south of I-55 yesterday. Central Tri-State is still 55 though. I assume it is also 60 MPH north of Touhy Ave and still 55 MPH south of I-57.
There were some 60 MPH signs north of Touhy.
Speed Limit 70 signs are now up on the Tri-State going south (I-94 East) from the WI state line to approximately Grand Avenue. I saw one 65 sign immediately south of Grand, and then I inexplicably stopped paying attention to the signs, but I exit at Route 60 so I probably missed 2 or 3 65 signs.
Quote from: Mrt90 on October 12, 2015, 09:23:23 AM
Speed Limit 70 signs are now up on the Tri-State going south (I-94 East) from the WI state line to approximately Grand Avenue. I saw one 65 sign immediately south of Grand, and then I inexplicably stopped paying attention to the signs, but I exit at Route 60 so I probably missed 2 or 3 65 signs.
Really!? That sounds awesome! I didn't think any part of the Tri-State was going to 70 MPH.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on October 11, 2015, 08:38:02 PM
Quote from: dave069 on October 11, 2015, 11:38:51 AM
Saw some 60 MPH signs on I-294 south of I-55 yesterday. Central Tri-State is still 55 though. I assume it is also 60 MPH north of Touhy Ave and still 55 MPH south of I-57.
There were some 60 MPH signs north of Touhy.
I was on 294 yesterday from Lake-Cook to Willow and it was 60 for at least that stretch.
If I-94 is 70 MPH north of Gurnee Mills while still in Illinois then I-90 better have gone to 70 between Rockford and Elgin.
Thought this was clever:
via Raise the Speed Limit in Metro Chicago & Illinois on facebook
QuoteThe Illinois Tollway is running a contest to select a cover for the 2016 map. All of them feature the monarch butterfly, a species they seem concerned about preserving (moreso than humans it seems). I submitted this to the Director and the Board of Directors. Doubt it will win, but hope it gets some people's attention.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11140084_537557366419635_1909151047323499553_n.jpg?oh=e9df692be1d02640779bb3f10e2a7a81&oe=56B49F6A)
edit: Here's the CDM Smith report containing the USLIMITS2 results: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZG9uZXJkZXNpZ25zLm9yZ3xkb25lci1kZXNpZ25zfGd4Ojc0MDU4MjZkYWUyYWEwZWQ
Quote from: dave069 on October 18, 2015, 08:12:34 PM
If I-94 is 70 MPH north of Gurnee Mills while still in Illinois then I-90 better have gone to 70 between Rockford and Elgin.
Not yet, but with all the construction still on 90 I wouldn't expect that until the entire roadway is done next year.
**** this butterfly, gimme 75 mph speed limits.
I don't see anyone complaining and throwing a fit whenever someone gets prescribed antibiotics.
I saw those 70 mph speed limits on I-70 east of St. Louie.
Quote from: quickshade on November 13, 2015, 10:10:40 AM
Quote from: dave069 on October 18, 2015, 08:12:34 PM
If I-94 is 70 MPH north of Gurnee Mills while still in Illinois then I-90 better have gone to 70 between Rockford and Elgin.
Not yet, but with all the construction still on 90 I wouldn't expect that until the entire roadway is done next year.
When I e-mailed them about it in August I got this in response:
"The Tollway has already raised the speed limit for both cars and trucks to 70 mph on the rural segment on I-90 west of the I-39 (Cherry Valley) Interchange to the western terminus of this segment near the Wisconsin state line. We plan to perform a speed limit study on the segment of I-90 between Elgin and Cherry Valley later this year after we have accumulated operating data to support the study. This segment is currently posted at 65 mph. The eastern segment of I-90 is under construction until 2016, and will be evaluated in 2017. We appreciate your interest and again thank you for your e-mail."
Hopefully they're doing it now. I mean the year is almost over and they have no excuse to keep that segment at 65. It's not urban at all.
Quote from: dave069 on November 14, 2015, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: quickshade on November 13, 2015, 10:10:40 AM
Quote from: dave069 on October 18, 2015, 08:12:34 PM
If I-94 is 70 MPH north of Gurnee Mills while still in Illinois then I-90 better have gone to 70 between Rockford and Elgin.
Not yet, but with all the construction still on 90 I wouldn't expect that until the entire roadway is done next year.
When I e-mailed them about it in August I got this in response:
"The Tollway has already raised the speed limit for both cars and trucks to 70 mph on the rural segment on I-90 west of the I-39 (Cherry Valley) Interchange to the western terminus of this segment near the Wisconsin state line. We plan to perform a speed limit study on the segment of I-90 between Elgin and Cherry Valley later this year after we have accumulated operating data to support the study."
I can't see how I-90 in that area couldn't support 70 mph speed limits, at least once they're done replacing overpasses. Especially with the excellent lighting in place, it's probably one of the best-designed interstate highways anywhere.
So it looks like they wanted to have a full years worth of data with I90 at 3 lanes. I would think during the spring they would have a decision made, however I still think they hold off until 90 is done with construction.
Thing is the way the law seems to read, that section of I-90 should be posted at 70 and the Tollway studying if they need to drop the speed limit, not the current way of keeping the speed limit down and studying whether it can be raised.
Although it is unlikely for anyone to be ticketed on the Tollway system for doing 70 in a 65, has anyone heard of someone challenging a ticket on the tollway lately due to the posted speed limit not being legal?
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 15, 2015, 09:40:41 PM
Thing is the way the law seems to read, that section of I-90 should be posted at 70 and the Tollway studying if they need to drop the speed limit, not the current way of keeping the speed limit down and studying whether it can be raised.
Although it is unlikely for anyone to be ticketed on the Tollway system for doing 70 in a 65, has anyone heard of someone challenging a ticket on the tollway lately due to the posted speed limit not being legal?
But the data they have built up for the past 10 years was on a 4 lane highway with a broken surface and then 3 years of construction. With a higher quality surface, an added lane in each direction, bigger shoulders, a better median and much better lightning I would suspect that the new data would be much different.
As for the ticket thing, I routinely do 75 in these sections and have never had a cop flinch when I pass them. Not to mention most times I surrounded by packs of cars doing the same speed.
via Raise the Speed Limit in Metro Chicago & Illinois (on facebook)
QuoteWe heard from Senator Oberweis this week that he and Tollway leaders continue to work the speed limit issue. It felt like a defeat when the 60 mph signs went up, but that was simply the result of what the prior administration set in motion. There is still hope!
Quote from: bahnburner on November 25, 2015, 10:32:23 PM
via Raise the Speed Limit in Metro Chicago & Illinois (on facebook)
QuoteWe heard from Senator Oberweis this week that he and Tollway leaders continue to work the speed limit issue. It felt like a defeat when the 60 mph signs went up, but that was simply the result of what the prior administration set in motion. There is still hope!
I was on I-88 a couple days ago going out towards DeKalb. Seriously, it's an absolute joke where the speed limit lowers to 65 from 70 at route 47. If there were a compromise (using this tollway as an example), MAYBE have the limit lower at the Aurora toll plaza from 70 to 65, and leave it at 65 to Hillside Strangler, and then put it at 60 to the city limits at least.
quotefix --sso
I-355 has had the speed limit increased from 55 mph to 60 mph from south of Roosevelt Rd to I-55.
The speed limit from I-55 to I-80 still remains at 65 mph.
The logic for the slow down to 55 mph from Roosevelt to Army Trail Rd, and then back up to 60 mph from Army Trail to I-90 does not make much sense to me.
Why IL 53 didn't have the speed limit raised to 60 mph but I-290 and sections of I-355 did does not make much sense to me.
Should be speed limit 65 from Lake Cook to I-55 and should be speed limit 70 from I-55 to I-80.
There are cloverleafs at I-90, Euclid, and Palatine that require traffic in the right lane to be driving slower than 65, but a speed limit is a maxium speed, not a minimum speed.
Right now the posted speed limit is actually more of the minimum speed.
Quote from: dietermoreno on December 03, 2015, 01:58:02 AM
I-355 has had the speed limit increased from 55 mph to 60 mph from south of Roosevelt Rd to I-55.
The speed limit from I-55 to I-80 still remains at 65 mph.
The logic for the slow down to 55 mph from Roosevelt to Army Trail Rd, and then back up to 60 mph from Army Trail to I-90 does not make much sense to me.
That 60 mph extends all the way to Army Trail Road, not just Roosevelt. It's 55 mph between Army Trail and Thorndale.
I thought the normal limit was 60 all the way from I-55 to I-90 just between Army Trail and Thorndale was under construction and had a work zone speed limit of 55.
Quote from: Brandon on December 03, 2015, 06:54:10 AM
Quote from: dietermoreno on December 03, 2015, 01:58:02 AM
I-355 has had the speed limit increased from 55 mph to 60 mph from south of Roosevelt Rd to I-55.
The speed limit from I-55 to I-80 still remains at 65 mph.
The logic for the slow down to 55 mph from Roosevelt to Army Trail Rd, and then back up to 60 mph from Army Trail to I-90 does not make much sense to me.
That 60 mph extends all the way to Army Trail Road, not just Roosevelt. It's 55 mph between Army Trail and Thorndale.
That stretch between Army Trail and I-290 has always been a favorite speed trap for cops. I wouldn't be surprised if that is part of what goes into keeping that stretch at 55 mph. It really should be 65 mph all the way down I-355 and the stretch of I-290 between Addison and I-90. The portion of L 53 North of I-90 should at least be 60 mph.
Some more sections of the Tollways will see speed limit increases pending state approval. I-355 from 55 to 80 and I-90 from Rockford to Elgin toll plaza will go up to 70 mph. The link is here, but you need a digitalPlus subscription to read it on the Tribs website.
http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34253/f/622810/s/4c1f75dc/sc/3/l/0L0Schicagotribune0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cbreaking0Cct0Etollway0Espeed0Elimit0Emet0E20A15120A90Estory0Bhtml/ia1.htm (http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34253/f/622810/s/4c1f75dc/sc/3/l/0L0Schicagotribune0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cbreaking0Cct0Etollway0Espeed0Elimit0Emet0E20A15120A90Estory0Bhtml/ia1.htm)
EDIT: Forgot about the thread already talking about this :pan: :pan: If you want to move it there mods, go ahead
Finally! I will be so happy to see the 70 MPH signs on I-90! I think I-355 may not get approval because its connecting interstates have speed limits no higher than 65 MPH, unless I-80 has been changed to 70 MPH. If it did that would be really nice.
Quote from: ET21 on December 09, 2015, 07:20:00 PM
Some more sections of the Tollways will see speed limit increases pending state approval. I-355 from 55 to 80 and I-90 from Rockford to Elgin toll plaza will go up to 70 mph. The link is here, but you need a digitalPlus subscription to read it on the Tribs website.
http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34253/f/622810/s/4c1f75dc/sc/3/l/0L0Schicagotribune0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cbreaking0Cct0Etollway0Espeed0Elimit0Emet0E20A15120A90Estory0Bhtml/ia1.htm (http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34253/f/622810/s/4c1f75dc/sc/3/l/0L0Schicagotribune0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cbreaking0Cct0Etollway0Espeed0Elimit0Emet0E20A15120A90Estory0Bhtml/ia1.htm)
EDIT: Forgot about the thread already talking about this :pan: :pan: If you want to move it there mods, go ahead
What about I-90 Elgin to I-290 and I-290 to I-294 waiting for road work to be done?
I-355 Army Trail to I-290? Waiting for EOE work to be done?
I-294 I-90 to I-55 upgrade 60? 65? 70?
I-295 I-90 to I-94 65 or 70.
I-94 I-294 to WI should be 70.
EOE 65 or maybe 60
IL-53 60 to lake cook road
IL-53 / I-XXX lake cook road to IL-120 / I-XXX 65 or 70.
IL-120 / I-XXX I-94 to US-12 65 or 70.
Us 12 / I-XXX IL-120 to US-12 WI 70 (FAP 420)
I-94 EXT 65 or 60
I-94 US-41 to I-90 or some where before (US-14?) 65 or 60
I-90 I-294 to I-94 or some where before (IL-43?) 60
I-290 I-355 to I-294 60 or 65
I-88 I-294 to I-355 60 or 65
I-290 to US 12/45 60
I-55 I-355 to I-294 65
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on December 10, 2015, 10:04:44 AM
Quote from: ET21 on December 09, 2015, 07:20:00 PM
Some more sections of the Tollways will see speed limit increases pending state approval. I-355 from 55 to 80 and I-90 from Rockford to Elgin toll plaza will go up to 70 mph. The link is here, but you need a digitalPlus subscription to read it on the Tribs website.
http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34253/f/622810/s/4c1f75dc/sc/3/l/0L0Schicagotribune0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cbreaking0Cct0Etollway0Espeed0Elimit0Emet0E20A15120A90Estory0Bhtml/ia1.htm (http://da.feedsportal.com/c/34253/f/622810/s/4c1f75dc/sc/3/l/0L0Schicagotribune0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cbreaking0Cct0Etollway0Espeed0Elimit0Emet0E20A15120A90Estory0Bhtml/ia1.htm)
EDIT: Forgot about the thread already talking about this :pan: :pan: If you want to move it there mods, go ahead
What about I-90 Elgin to I-290 and I-290 to I-294 waiting for road work to be done?
I-355 Army Trail to I-290? Waiting for EOE work to be done? :confused:
I-294 I-90 to I-55 upgrade 60? 65? 70? There have been random 60 mph postings, especially between I-88 and Touhy
I-295 I-90 to I-94 65 or 70.
I-94 I-294 to WI should be 70.
EOE 65 or maybe 60
IL-53 60 to lake cook road
IL-53 / I-XXX lake cook road to IL-120 / I-XXX 65 or 70.
IL-120 / I-XXX I-94 to US-12 65 or 70.
Us 12 / I-XXX IL-120 to US-12 WI 70 (FAP 420)
I-94 EXT 65 or 60
I-94 US-41 to I-90 or some where before (US-14?) 65 or 60
I-90 I-294 to I-94 or some where before (IL-43?) 60
I-290 I-355 to I-294 60 or 65
I-88 I-294 to I-355 60 or 65
I-290 to US 12/45 60
I-55 I-355 to I-294 65
Couldn't tell you, it's Illinois so don't expect an answer in this decade
The section I felt needed it most is finally getting the bump (hopefully). The portion of I-90 between Elgin and Rockford should've long been a prime candidate for 70, but I guess they were waiting for the peripheral work to finish.
As for I-355 between I-80 and I-55, I just think it sucks that you have to drop back down to 65 once you default onto I-80. However, that stretch was another easy choice to get the bump,
Now that the speed limit in Illinois has been raised to 70 (in some places), perhaps it's time to update the title of this thread?
Small update:
This is an updated map of current posted speed limits and NEW proposed increases that the Illinois Tollway is working with IDOT to implement.
Proposed changes
Reagan Memorial Highway (I-88):
- 65 MPH between Route 31 and Route 47 (instead of Route 31 and Orchard Rd.)
- 70 MPH west of Route 47 (instead of 65 MPH from Orchard Rd to Kane-Dekalb county line)
I-90:
-70 MPH west of Elgin (instead of 65 MPH)
I-355:
- 70 MPH on southern end (instead of 65 MPH)
I hear they were very reluctant on I-294.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFV1DqRH.jpg&hash=6c8a89105b8d070e496a8e91d7b47c5f092540a4)
Just increase them all to 70!
No Interstate should be less then 70 mph, unless it is too narrow or something to safely accommodate a 70 mph (or higher) speed limit.
What about the EOE?
I-355/I-290 from the end of the tollway to EOE
I-290 from I-355 to north?
I-294 after central rebuild? VMS speed limits?
Will I-90 have VMS speed limits?
Quote from: I-39 on April 26, 2016, 10:27:23 PM
Just increase them all to 70!
No Interstate should be less then 70 mph, unless it is too narrow or something to safely accommodate a 70 mph (or higher) speed limit.
Because Chicago.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 27, 2016, 05:56:22 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 26, 2016, 10:27:23 PM
Just increase them all to 70!
No Interstate should be less then 70 mph, unless it is too narrow or something to safely accommodate a 70 mph (or higher) speed limit.
Because Chicago.
Like it matters. No one driving on these roadways are following speed limits
Quote from: ET21 on April 27, 2016, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 27, 2016, 05:56:22 AM
Quote from: I-39 on April 26, 2016, 10:27:23 PM
Just increase them all to 70!
No Interstate should be less then 70 mph, unless it is too narrow or something to safely accommodate a 70 mph (or higher) speed limit.
Because Chicago.
Like it matters. No one driving on these roadways are following speed limits
precisely. The ones that are are the dangers to traffic.
I don't think I disagree with a majority of these speed limits, Most of the area's that have lower limits are usually more congested than the outer areas where the speed limits are higher. I do think that it should be 75 and not 70, but when you get closer to the city I have no problem with the 60-65 limit.
My big issue is that the speed limits have no relation whatsoever to the speeds that drivers are running on these highways. Metro Detroit is at least realistic - the stretches of freeways there that aren't posted for 70 have genuine safety issues. Otherwise, they're posted for 70, and most drivers run 70-80mph with traffic if they're not congested.
None of the tollways in Illinois have design issues preventing 70mph speed limits. In the areas posted for 55 or 60, if it's not congested, traffic runs 65-80 mph, and it does so safely. The horribly underposted speed limits make drivers contemptuous of them even when they're warranted. Take the construction zone east of Elgin - traffic routinely runs 60-70 mph in a zone posted for 45 mph. Ditto during construction west of Elgin the last couple of years - even going 10 over relegated me squarely to the slow lane. One could make a definite case for an impeding traffic ticket if someone actually drove the speed limit.
I could've sworn the changes on I-88 were already implemented. Its been 70 MPH west of route 47 since 2014 and I'm pretty sure the 65 zone was extended to route 31. I wonder how likely the speed limit increase on I-355 is because as far as I am aware, I-80 is still posted at 65 which would put none of the connecting interstates at 70. With I-90, its pretty much certain that it will get the 70 MPH speed limit.
As far as the construction zone, that 45 MPH "limit" is an absolute joke. I run 60-65 there most of the time and I don't pass very many people. Should be bumped to 55-60 if you ask me.
I was driving through Downstate today, and I have to ask why some Interstates are still signed as 65 and not 70. For instance, I-270 anywhere East of I-255. The traffic and population density of this hardly warrant a speed limit less than 70. What's humorous is that I-55/74 through Bloomington/Normal is signed at 70, and I guarantee it has higher population density and even traffic than I-270 once you get East of I-255.
My understanding of it is that IDOT and the interpreted the 70 MPH speed limit law as to apply outside of large metro areas unless there is a lot of congestion or something that they deemed as a reason for a lower limit. I think its 65 on 270 because it's still considered a part of the St. Louis area. Also, downstate is where the cops set up speed traps like the 55 zone on I-270 so I think the money from speeding tickets may have something to do with it as well.
Quote from: dave069 on May 15, 2016, 06:33:19 PM
My understanding of it is that IDOT and the interpreted the 70 MPH speed limit law as to apply outside of large metro areas unless there is a lot of congestion or something that they deemed as a reason for a lower limit. I think its 65 on 270 because it's still considered a part of the St. Louis area. Also, downstate is where the cops set up speed traps like the 55 zone on I-270 so I think the money from speeding tickets may have something to do with it as well.
Now that I think about it, I remember something like that in the provisions. Personally, I think they need to revisit that altogether (although more so in Chicagoland). That 55 zone between I-270 and the river is absolutely ridiculous. Even on the Missouri side, I believe it is 60, and Illinois outta at least match up with that.
Missouri's 60 is the equivalent to the 55 zones of Illinois.
True although 60 is a little bit more realistic. Illinois should definitely be consistent there because going from 65-55-60 is really pointless, especially since nobody adheres to it anyway unless there is a cop around.
Quote from: dave069 on May 16, 2016, 10:22:56 AM
True although 60 is a little bit more realistic. Illinois should definitely be consistent there because going from 65-55-60 is really pointless, especially since nobody adheres to it anyway unless there is a cop around.
That's pretty much my point, and it's obvious that slow zone is there as a speed trap.
I was lucky enough to not spot a cop there when I was driving in that area in April. Also, is there a reason for the fact that on I-55 SB the 70 zone doesn't start until mm242 but NB it is 70 until the Des Plaines River? Did IDOT want to make both sides of the interstate 70 and only had the money to do one side or something like that?