Speed limit anomalies? (Fastest work zone, weird speeds, etc)

[hotdogPi]

10 mph. Ten.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3573804,-71.1129666,3a,74.4y,227.55h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scaw8KGpY4SwNYEQtuUW3pQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(was part of a pilot program that failed; is no longer the case)

[GaryV]

10 mph. Ten.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3573804,-71.1129666,3a,74.4y,227.55h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scaw8KGpY4SwNYEQtuUW3pQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(was part of a pilot program that failed; is no longer the case)

What are they sharing it with, sheep?

[JayhawkCO]

Driving back from KC a couple weekends ago, just outside of Garden City, US50/400 crosses a functional railroad track (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0035175,-100.9292862,3a,75y,277.99h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLdtFIBh0DvFfI9rPeDrNJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e2!1e4) at 70 mph.  Are there any other instances of this (or higher)?

[LilianaUwU]

Driving back from KC a couple weekends ago, just outside of Garden City, US50/400 crosses a functional railroad track (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0035175,-100.9292862,3a,75y,277.99h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLdtFIBh0DvFfI9rPeDrNJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e2!1e4) at 70 mph.  Are there any other instances of this (or higher)?

It's not really as fast (100 km/h, 60 mph), but A-20's railroad crossing is on a freeway: https://goo.gl/maps/T9PzuevGjech2ath9

One spot that does have an equal speed limit (110km/h, 70 mph), though, is on NB-2 in Moncton: https://goo.gl/maps/ZRfPa2ahs8YKR6iW7

It's not the only crossing on NB-2 near Moncton either: https://goo.gl/maps/GDbuTAcHr8jT6MtN7

I can't confirm if these crossings are terribly active, though.

[JayhawkCO]

Driving back from KC a couple weekends ago, just outside of Garden City, US50/400 crosses a functional railroad track (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0035175,-100.9292862,3a,75y,277.99h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLdtFIBh0DvFfI9rPeDrNJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e2!1e4) at 70 mph.  Are there any other instances of this (or higher)?

It's not really as fast (100 km/h, 60 mph), but A-20's railroad crossing is on a freeway: https://goo.gl/maps/T9PzuevGjech2ath9

One spot that does have an equal speed limit (110km/h, 70 mph), though, is on NB-2 in Moncton: https://goo.gl/maps/ZRfPa2ahs8YKR6iW7

It's not the only crossing on NB-2 near Moncton either: https://goo.gl/maps/GDbuTAcHr8jT6MtN7

I can't confirm if these crossings are terribly active, though.

Hmm, I was just on NB2 and I didn't remember that.  Thanks!

[GaryV]

There used to be a RR crossing on US-131 north of Kalamazoo, but that one was taken out long ago.  And for years before it was removed, there were no trains.  There was some legal reason to keep the crossing marked - maybe as long as the right of way was still RR property or something.

[JayhawkCO]

This one is at least still marked on the KS Railroad Map.

[MASTERNC]

Just saw a 70 MPH work zone on YouTube outside of Salt Lake City (down from 80 MPH) on I-80.  There was a lane closure with shifts.

[deathtopumpkins]

Driving back from KC a couple weekends ago, just outside of Garden City, US50/400 crosses a functional railroad track (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0035175,-100.9292862,3a,75y,277.99h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLdtFIBh0DvFfI9rPeDrNJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e2!1e4) at 70 mph.  Are there any other instances of this (or higher)?

There are 75 mph roads in Texas with railroad crossings, e.g. US 90 east of Brackettville: https://goo.gl/maps/EF6R1DXFMsnTemmL8

Here's a 70 mph grade crossing in Montana, without even gates! https://goo.gl/maps/YgKmhzSmweNUAaxT7

Here's a 70 mph exempt grade crossing in Idaho: https://goo.gl/maps/BmHbZFf1MsreXrgS8

I'm willing to bet there are some in Nevada, Wyoming, and/or Oklahoma too, though no examples immediately come to mind.

[JayhawkCO]

I figured it someone was higher, it would be Texas for sure.  Just don't know how you're supposed to slow down that quickly if there actually is a train.

[oscar]

An oldie but goodie (no photo alas): for a time, part of I-395 in D.C. had a work zone speed limit of 45mph, higher than the regular speed limit (posted in that zone) of 40mph.

[deathtopumpkins]

I figured it someone was higher, it would be Texas for sure.  Just don't know how you're supposed to slow down that quickly if there actually is a train.

Based on my experience driving around Texas, the answer seems to just be pay close attention and have good brakes.

This is a state that will post 75 mph through a traffic signal after all!

[roadfro]

Driving back from KC a couple weekends ago, just outside of Garden City, US50/400 crosses a functional railroad track (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0035175,-100.9292862,3a,75y,277.99h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLdtFIBh0DvFfI9rPeDrNJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e2!1e4) at 70 mph.  Are there any other instances of this (or higher)?

<...>
I'm willing to bet there are some in Nevada, Wyoming, and/or Oklahoma too, though no examples immediately come to mind.

Did a little Googling, since I was curious.

Here's some examples of high-speed railroad crossings in Nevada, although I'm not sure how active all these crossings are... But all are on two-lane highways somewhat in the middle of nowhere.

US 95 Alt north of Yerington (60 mph)
US 95 Alt near Ft Churchill State Park (65 or 70 mph)

US 50 just east of Silver Springs (65 mph)

US 95 just east of Hawthorne (70 mph): This one is an exempt crossing, as the rail line is within Hawthorne Army Depot on either side of the highway and isn't active. (Interestingly, the most recent Street View has one of the crossing arms swung away from the highway and another completely down and outside the ROW fence.)

US 93 south of Wells (70 mph): I'm guessing this crossing must be active enough to have some issues, because it has "prepare to stop when flashing" beacons well in advance of the crossing in each direction (I've not seen beacons like this in person elsewhere in Nevada for a grade crossing).


And an interesting case: US 93 north of Ely (60 mph). These tracks are out of service, as indicated by these signs that seem to have been put up in place of the RR warning sign. They kinda halfway removed the crossing infrastructure...advance pavement markings and crossing signals were not removed, but the crossbucks and gate arms were.

[Dirt Roads]

Driving back from KC a couple weekends ago, just outside of Garden City, US50/400 crosses a functional railroad track (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0035175,-100.9292862,3a,75y,277.99h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLdtFIBh0DvFfI9rPeDrNJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e2!1e4) at 70 mph.  Are there any other instances of this (or higher)?

Did a little Googling, since I was curious.

Here's some examples of high-speed railroad crossings in Nevada, although I'm not sure how active all these crossings are... But all are on two-lane highways somewhat in the middle of nowhere.

US 95 Alt north of Yerington (60 mph)
US 95 Alt near Ft Churchill State Park (65 or 70 mph)

US 50 just east of Silver Springs (65 mph)

US 95 just east of Hawthorne (70 mph): This one is an exempt crossing, as the rail line is within Hawthorne Army Depot on either side of the highway and isn't active. (Interestingly, the most recent Street View has one of the crossing arms swung away from the highway and another completely down and outside the ROW fence.)

US 93 south of Wells (70 mph): I'm guessing this crossing must be active enough to have some issues, because it has "prepare to stop when flashing" beacons well in advance of the crossing in each direction (I've not seen beacons like this in person elsewhere in Nevada for a grade crossing).


And an interesting case: US 93 north of Ely (60 mph). These tracks are out of service, as indicated by these signs that seem to have been put up in place of the RR warning sign. They kinda halfway removed the crossing infrastructure...advance pavement markings and crossing signals were not removed, but the crossbucks and gate arms were.

It's pretty gutsy for any DOT to post speeds over 55MPH over a railroad crossing, because it's nearly impossible to maintain the relative elevation of both the railroad tracks and the highway over time.  All of these have modern concrete panel crossing surfaces with a reinforced flangeway (plus a derailment flangeway). 

The gravel/rock (called "ballast") underneath the track (and the crossing panel) is intended to allow water to drain, so some drainage will roll through the crossing itself.  That gets dirty over time, and the standard maintenance approach is to add more ballast thereby raising the elevation of the track by a few inches every so often.  The railroad pulls the crossing panels up, lays down new ballast, compacts it all and puts the crossing panels back down.  You can see the results on the one on US 93 south of Wells.  I would hate to hit that one at 70MPH with a loose load.

[Rothman]

Huh.  I thought RR crossings on rural "expressways" were common, with speed limits of 55 mph or higher.

[Dirt Roads]

Huh.  I thought RR crossings on rural "expressways" were common, with speed limits of 55 mph or higher.

Yes, there are many out west.  Not sure how many are left here on the East Coast.  My railroading career was still under the National Maximum Speed Law (55MPH), so I never worked on any of them.  Pretty much all of my crossings that were on routes that could have been upgraded have either been grade separated, or in many cases, the routes were relocated onto higher-speed bypasses.  Here in North Carolina, the NCDOT Rail Division has a high priority on such crossings and may have already eliminated all of them.

There are three issues here.  Higher speed tracks (mainlines) are subject to tight horizontal and vertical tolerances, which require frequent inspection and corrective action when needed.  Heavy tonnage tracks (typically mainlines) get lots off wear-and-tear, but are subject to tighter maintenance standards.  Low tonnage tracks and/or slow speed tracks don't require the same level of maintenance.  The first two categories get "pulled up out of the mud", which creates an elevation change with respect to the grade crossings.  The third category gets "mushy" and the crossing panels won't stay where they were placed.  Since the states are financially responsible for maintenance of the crossing (not the railroads), the DOTs in those states can schedule more frequent crossing panel maintenance on higher speed routes.

[sprjus4]

NC-148 C.F. Harvey Pkwy crosses tracks outside at Kinston on 60 mph divided highway.

[fwydriver405]

Something strange with the speed limit on I-95 North in New Hampshire I have noticed ever since they did construction on the Piscataqua River Bridge... the speed limit is already 55 MPH (89 km/h) a bit south of Exit 3 and remains 55 (89) up till the end of the bridge approach in Maine. However, due to bridge construction, there's a sign before Exit 7 saying "Work Speed Limit 55 MPH Ahead"... but the normal speed limit is already 55 (89) before the work zone.

Is that orange warning sign required anyways because although the speed limit for both normal and work zone is 55 (89), they need to explicitly state it as it is transitioning from normal to work zone speed limit? Been wondering if they could omit the warning sign and just put the Work Zone Speed Limit regulatory signs at the next time it's signed, in this case, after the exit 7 on-ramp and just put the normal "ROAD WORK AHEAD" warning signs before Exit 7.

[vdeane]

Something strange with the speed limit on I-95 North in New Hampshire I have noticed ever since they did construction on the Piscataqua River Bridge... the speed limit is already 55 MPH (89 km/h) a bit south of Exit 3 and remains 55 (89) up till the end of the bridge approach in Maine. However, due to bridge construction, there's a sign before Exit 7 saying "Work Speed Limit 55 MPH Ahead"... but the normal speed limit is already 55 (89) before the work zone.

Is that orange warning sign required anyways because although the speed limit for both normal and work zone is 55 (89), they need to explicitly state it as it is transitioning from normal to work zone speed limit? Been wondering if they could omit the warning sign and just put the Work Zone Speed Limit regulatory signs at the next time it's signed, in this case, after the exit 7 on-ramp and just put the normal "ROAD WORK AHEAD" warning signs before Exit 7.

New Hampshire has a habit of just posting standard work zone signs whether they're necessary or not.  When I drove through Franconia Notch, right from where the road would normally widen back to two lanes was a series of work zones chained together.  Each one had "left lane closed [distance]" and "left lane closed/merge right" signs despite the fact that there was no left lane open at any point between entering the Notch and leaving the last work zone.

[LilianaUwU]

Something strange with the speed limit on I-95 North in New Hampshire I have noticed ever since they did construction on the Piscataqua River Bridge... the speed limit is already 55 MPH (89 km/h) a bit south of Exit 3 and remains 55 (89) up till the end of the bridge approach in Maine. However, due to bridge construction, there's a sign before Exit 7 saying "Work Speed Limit 55 MPH Ahead"... but the normal speed limit is already 55 (89) before the work zone.

Is that orange warning sign required anyways because although the speed limit for both normal and work zone is 55 (89), they need to explicitly state it as it is transitioning from normal to work zone speed limit? Been wondering if they could omit the warning sign and just put the Work Zone Speed Limit regulatory signs at the next time it's signed, in this case, after the exit 7 on-ramp and just put the normal "ROAD WORK AHEAD" warning signs before Exit 7.

There's probably some legal thing about that (double fine zone?) that makes the signage necessary.

[sprjus4]

VDOT is currently doing that along the HRBT construction zone in Norfolk and Hampton. The default speed limit was already 55 mph, but now the corridor is lined with Work Zone / Fines Higher signage and the 55 mph limit.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Last summer when I was in Montana on I-94 there were one or two 35 MPH work zones on an 80 MPH road. The work was intensive enough to warrant a speed reduction in my view but 35 felt more than excessively low. A 50 or 55 MPH zone would probably have been fine for the work involved. Because of the lack of traffic density I was nervous about getting plowed into from behind by someone who didn't notice/didn't care.

[roadfro]

Something strange with the speed limit on I-95 North in New Hampshire I have noticed ever since they did construction on the Piscataqua River Bridge... the speed limit is already 55 MPH (89 km/h) a bit south of Exit 3 and remains 55 (89) up till the end of the bridge approach in Maine. However, due to bridge construction, there's a sign before Exit 7 saying "Work Speed Limit 55 MPH Ahead"... but the normal speed limit is already 55 (89) before the work zone.

Is that orange warning sign required anyways because although the speed limit for both normal and work zone is 55 (89), they need to explicitly state it as it is transitioning from normal to work zone speed limit? Been wondering if they could omit the warning sign and just put the Work Zone Speed Limit regulatory signs at the next time it's signed, in this case, after the exit 7 on-ramp and just put the normal "ROAD WORK AHEAD" warning signs before Exit 7.

There's probably some legal thing about that (double fine zone?) that makes the signage necessary.

I definitely think it's related to legal requirements for the work zone.

In Nevada, just about every traffic violation in a work zone can be subject to double penalties according to state law. However, the work zone must be marked with signage indicating "Double penalties in work zones" and the beginning and ending of the work zone in order for the doubled penalty to be enforced. Generally just after the "begin work zone" signs, there's a speed limit sign posted temporarily (even though Nevada doesn't typically use a "work zone speed" or similar banner), so that (often reduced) speed becomes double penalty enforceable.

My guess is that the state may have a legal requirement that a work zone speed be clearly posted as such in order for any increased fines or penalties to apply.

[vdeane]

Something strange with the speed limit on I-95 North in New Hampshire I have noticed ever since they did construction on the Piscataqua River Bridge... the speed limit is already 55 MPH (89 km/h) a bit south of Exit 3 and remains 55 (89) up till the end of the bridge approach in Maine. However, due to bridge construction, there's a sign before Exit 7 saying "Work Speed Limit 55 MPH Ahead"... but the normal speed limit is already 55 (89) before the work zone.

Is that orange warning sign required anyways because although the speed limit for both normal and work zone is 55 (89), they need to explicitly state it as it is transitioning from normal to work zone speed limit? Been wondering if they could omit the warning sign and just put the Work Zone Speed Limit regulatory signs at the next time it's signed, in this case, after the exit 7 on-ramp and just put the normal "ROAD WORK AHEAD" warning signs before Exit 7.

There's probably some legal thing about that (double fine zone?) that makes the signage necessary.

I definitely think it's related to legal requirements for the work zone.

In Nevada, just about every traffic violation in a work zone can be subject to double penalties according to state law. However, the work zone must be marked with signage indicating "Double penalties in work zones" and the beginning and ending of the work zone in order for the doubled penalty to be enforced. Generally just after the "begin work zone" signs, there's a speed limit sign posted temporarily (even though Nevada doesn't typically use a "work zone speed" or similar banner), so that (often reduced) speed becomes double penalty enforceable.

My guess is that the state may have a legal requirement that a work zone speed be clearly posted as such in order for any increased fines or penalties to apply.

That would explain the speed limit on I-95, but not the lane closure signage I mentioned on I-93 (note the already coned off left lane in the second picture):
https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i93&state=NH&file=101_2170.JPG
https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i93&state=NH&file=101_2175.JPG

[sprjus4]

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1953467,-96.2447184,3a,75y,0.43h,86.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfeJT02DbD_x-xTYBGtio-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Speed limit 50 mph, work zone speed limit 65 mph.

The real reason, is the actual frontage road limit is 50 mph, but since it's being used as the temporary mainline, it is allowed to move at 65 mph. Still a very interesting sign combination. It's also striped as 3 lanes each way, when the final configuration will be 2 main lanes and 2 frontage road lanes in each direction.