Speed Limits That Are Too High

[debragga]

Sticking with Texas...

I think the northernmost 9 miles of I-35 should be 70 mph, not 75.

Parts of US 59 should be 65 or 70 that are posted 75.  There are places that are not freeway with center turn lanes, driveways of homes and businesses, and intersections very frequent that are posted at 75 mph.

US-281 south of Marble Falls is like that, but it's 4 lanes without a center turn lane, posted at 75 mph. And south of Blanco it's like that but with only 2 lanes, posted at 70 mph.

South of Marble Falls (it narrows to undivided): https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5029061,-98.3012986,3a,75y,219.64h,84.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUtpcyQWMihLXWGjbJd8HrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

[sprjus4]

Sticking with Texas...

I think the northernmost 9 miles of I-35 should be 70 mph, not 75.

Parts of US 59 should be 65 or 70 that are posted 75.  There are places that are not freeway with center turn lanes, driveways of homes and businesses, and intersections very frequent that are posted at 75 mph.

Maybe 70 mph, but I've never really had a problem with 75 mph. What areas specifically are you referring to?

[RobbieL2415]

Thread made about this already:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20198.0

New York has many two lane roads at 55 which are sketchy and would probably be lower elsewhere.

New York has many two lane roads at 55 which are sketchy and would probably be lower elsewhere. is the statewide basic speed limit for unposted roads and the basic speed law still applies.
That's why you see "end xx limit" signs when leaving town centers on, say, US 9 or NY 22.  The state either set a posted limit there or gave the town permission to set its own.

[doorknob60]

The only major one I can think of in Oregon (where usually it's the opposite problem), is I-84 over Cabbage Hill just east of Pendleton. It has a 70 MPH speed limit just like the rest of I-84 in Eastern Oregon, but it can be quite hard to hit that there. In both directions, you have some curves with advisory speeds as low as 45 (and taking them at 60 in a standard car, for example, is really pushing it). Downhill it's only 2 lanes so you have to contend with trucks taking it slow. with only 1 passing lane. If traffic is light, you can definitely maintain 70+ over good stretches of it, but you gotta be careful about it.

Uphill it's 3 lanes, but often in the right lane you have a truck going 15, then in the middle a truck going 45, then everyone else in the left lane which is sketchy. Plus you need to make sure not to turn a blind corner right into a slow truck. Uphill is curvier so it's hard to maintain a faster speed. And because it's pretty steep, many cars won't take it as fast as they otherwise would. Going uphill, I usually only maintain about 65 MPH on the straight sections because I don't want to downshift and rev my engine too hard. Of course, a car with more muscle wouldn't have that issue.

While I'm glad it's 70 (nice to take advantage of in light traffic) and wouldn't necessarily advocate for lowering it, I definitely wouldn't complain if it was lowered to 65 or 60. 55 would be a bummer.

In Idaho, ID-55 (Eagle Rd) in Meridian is 50 MPH south of Fairview and 55 MPH north of Fairview. While I wouldn't necessarily say it's too fast, it's definitely well above the flow of traffic, which is 45-50 on a good day (often 35-40 in moderate traffic). It's very suburban with stop lights every 0.5-1 mile and occasional driveways and side streets (though not constant like on a normal 35 MPH suburban street). It's really nice to cruise down from the city of Eagle to I-84 at 55 MPH late at night though. In most cities (even some others in Idaho like US-95 in Coeur d'Alene) this would definitely be 45. 45 would feel pretty slow in off hours, but fit in pretty well during the day. If it was me I'd set it all to 50 and call it a day.

[kphoger]

How is a speed limit too high? Barring something ridiculous like 70mph on a residential street, if you don't feel comfortable doing the speed limit, then just drive slower.

There are almost always some drivers, no matter the limit, who see the sign as a minimum of how fast they should go. Even if the users here are smart enough to go slower than the limit when it's not safe, those drivers will tailgate and pass dangerously or rear-end us at high speed.

It's not just that.  If a speed limit is supposed to be the maximum limit of how fast one can safely drive on a road under normal conditions, then it's perfectly reasonable that a driver would assume any speed up to that limit is safe to drive under such conditions.  This thread is about roads where it could be argued that the speed limit isn't quite as safe to drive under normal conditions as the speed limit might lead one to believe.

[webny99]

The opposite is also true. If you can drive the speed limit in the middle of the biggest snowstorm in a decade, then the speed limit is too low. This applies to many of the ridiculous 35 mph suburban roads in my area.

[jakeroot]

In Idaho, ID-55 (Eagle Rd) in Meridian is 50 MPH south of Fairview and 55 MPH north of Fairview. While I wouldn't necessarily say it's too fast, it's definitely well above the flow of traffic, which is 45-50 on a good day (often 35-40 in moderate traffic). It's very suburban with stop lights every 0.5-1 mile and occasional driveways and side streets (though not constant like on a normal 35 MPH suburban street). It's really nice to cruise down from the city of Eagle to I-84 at 55 MPH late at night though. In most cities (even some others in Idaho like US-95 in Coeur d'Alene) this would definitely be 45. 45 would feel pretty slow in off hours, but fit in pretty well during the day. If it was me I'd set it all to 50 and call it a day.

That's a great example. I think 55 is fine on that road, as it's a true limit (I doubt they do much policing along it), but it's definitely a bit uncharacteristic for most cities to sign what is ostensibly a suburban boulevard with a highway speed limit. I think WA would cap similar roads at 50mph.

The only place where such high limits are common along arterials would be in Orange County, California. Many boulevards, especially around Irvine, have some incredibly high speed limits. I believe there is one posted at 65, and several posted at 60 and 55. These are roads with mostly RIROs, but plenty of signals.

EDIT: links.

[webny99]

A 55 mph road where the flow of traffic is always well below the speed limit?
Look no further. And, just for kicks, here's another one a little closer to home.

[sprjus4]

The only place where such high limits are common along arterials would be in Orange County, California. Many boulevards, especially around Irvine, have some incredibly high speed limits. I believe there is one posted at 65, and several posted at 60 and 55. These are roads with mostly RIROs, but plenty of signals.

This one used to be 65 mph, but I guess they determined that was too high and lowered it to 60 mph.

[jakeroot]

The only place where such high limits are common along arterials would be in Orange County, California. Many boulevards, especially around Irvine, have some incredibly high speed limits. I believe there is one posted at 65, and several posted at 60 and 55. These are roads with mostly RIROs, but plenty of signals.

This one used to be 65 mph, but I guess they determined that was too high and lowered it to 60 mph.

Portola Parkway was also posted at 65. It's now 50

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

[SeriesE]

The only place where such high limits are common along arterials would be in Orange County, California. Many boulevards, especially around Irvine, have some incredibly high speed limits. I believe there is one posted at 65, and several posted at 60 and 55. These are roads with mostly RIROs, but plenty of signals.

This one used to be 65 mph, but I guess they determined that was too high and lowered it to 60 mph.

Irvine, in particular, seems to post high speed limits without adjusting the traffic signal timing, so it's impossible to maintain the speed limit while getting more than 1 green light.

[sparker]

Yes, this thread sounds like a joke, but I think that there are, in certain places, where the speed limit is set too high, for different reasons (yes, I am in favor of higher speed limits in most cases).

Example 1:
TX-35 through Alvin is posted at 55 mph, however, there is tons of traffic and traffic lights on this road, so the speed rarely gets up to 50. Honestly, 55 is a bit too generous.
Link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4019608,-95.2406322,3a,75y,97.46h,76.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFEueThJbDoFv64O_38IoGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Example 2:
I-35 just south of the SH-71 interchange is posted at 70 mph, in a work zone. I think 60 or 65 would be more appropriate. As a teen driver, driving in Austin on that stretch of freeway might have been the most challenging drive I've ever had because of those speeds.
Link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.204614,-97.7593036,3a,44y,215h,80.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoNzwRVXvMzJ9rW5sXx9qw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Are there any roads y'all know, for whatever reason, have absurdly high speed limits?

There are plenty of sections of CASR-1 (especially between Carmel and Morro Bay) that are unposted 2-lane undivided and therefore nominally 55MPH without advisory speeds that are safe at nowhere near 55MPH. There are even a few GATJAs where there is an advisory speed, (say 20 or 25MPH) where, after the turns that are so advised, one would reasonably think that they could go back to 55MPH or something like it only to be hit by a turn advised down to 15MPH. Try it at night in the fog.

"ROAD NOT MAINTAINED AT NIGHT"

Caltrans tends not to try to micromanage rural highways any more than necessary (except where local political pressure is brought to bear); CA 1 through Big Sur is a prime example of that; rather than post reduced speeds, which would have course vary widely depending upon specific curvature and lines of sight, they don't bother except for the tiny "business" zones and a couple of state park/beach turnoffs that see a lot of usage.  With that highway it's simple -- there's a physical limit to how fast one can travel given said curvature and reduced sight lines.  For the most part, those who hit the "63 miles of hell" zone with an eye toward gaming the system learn quickly that's likely not a good plan!  But those that do seem to follow the NASCAR road course game plan:  take the curves as tightly as possible given oncoming traffic and go like a bat out of hell on the few semi-straight stretches.  At my advanced age I don't recommend doing what I did 50 years ago this summer:  those 63 miles in 54 minutes.  But at that time my vehicle was a Lotus Cortina with full racing suspension (I did a lot of rallies in '68-'71 until my then-GF/future wife #1 put the kibosh on that activity).  BTW, that was northbound; I wouldn't even try it SB back when I was 20 (never been particularly suicidal!).

[formulanone]

I don't complain too often about this...after all, you can go slower and there's no minimum posted. But I was kind of surprised this bit of TX 105 is posted at 70 mph, as there were a lot more driveways than I was expecting:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1403625,-94.4300463,3a,48.7y,298.82h,86.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUAuL0lCQhykugDAzplv3yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Ben114]

This section of MA 140 in Shrewsbury is posted at 50, even though plenty of illegal passing occurs and trucks turning on and off US 20.

Most people I've seen go around 40 - 45 max.

https://goo.gl/maps/8hE4ZSNDob5V58JB7

[sprjus4]

The only place where such high limits are common along arterials would be in Orange County, California. Many boulevards, especially around Irvine, have some incredibly high speed limits. I believe there is one posted at 65, and several posted at 60 and 55. These are roads with mostly RIROs, but plenty of signals.

This one used to be 65 mph, but I guess they determined that was too high and lowered it to 60 mph.

Portola Parkway was also posted at 65. It's now 50

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

Interestingly, this one was raised from 50 mph to 55 mph.

[sprjus4]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

[kphoger]

I can think of several roads in the Missouri Ozarks that have a speed limit of 55 mph, but that have such a continuous series of low-speed curve advisories that it's all but impossible to ever actually get up to 55 mph.  I've wondered why these roads aren't just lowered to 45 mph or something instead.

[jakeroot]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

Another: the 133, south of the 405. Its appearance is also very freeway-like, although it has a couple signals immediately south of the 405. It remains as 65 before it drops to 60 immediately prior (spin camera around) to the parclo interchange with the 73 Toll Road, several miles south.

I swear on my life that there's another somewhere, and a decidedly more suburban example at that, but I can't find it.

[Roadgeekteen]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

Another: the 133, south of the 405. Its appearance is also very freeway-like, although it has a couple signals immediately south of the 405. It remains as 65 before it drops to 60 immediately prior (spin camera around) to the parclo interchange with the 73 Toll Road, several miles south.

I swear on my life that there's another somewhere, and a decidedly more suburban example at that, but I can't find it.

And route one north of Boston (non freeway part) can't get above 50...

[jakeroot]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

Another: the 133, south of the 405. Its appearance is also very freeway-like, although it has a couple signals immediately south of the 405. It remains as 65 before it drops to 60 immediately prior (spin camera around) to the parclo interchange with the 73 Toll Road, several miles south.

I swear on my life that there's another somewhere, and a decidedly more suburban example at that, but I can't find it.

And route one north of Boston (non freeway part) can't get above 50...

Two big things (second thing being the most important):

1) these Orange County arterials are of extremely high quality, with good pavement, limited access, straightened curves, and wide lanes.

2) California has strict "speed trap" laws that prevent enforcement of speeds along roadways that have not had speed studies performed recently. These speed studies generally result in limits posted near the 85th percentile, which along many of these Orange County arterials, are pretty high. Some municipalities might have an arbitrary cap on limits within certain areas, or along certain types of roads. It's tougher to do this in California because posted limits are basically unenforceable if there isn't a speed study showing that limit to be appropriate.

As an example for number 2, look at the link I posted for the 133: the limit is 65, despite having signals and traditional right and left turn lanes. Some places might put a speed limit cap on roads like this (eg, "roads with signals cannot be higher than 55"), but California simply doesn't. If Orange County or Caltrans wanted to lower the limit, they certainly could. But it would not be enforceable (to a reasonable degree**) without a speed study showing something under 65 to be more appropriate.

** EDIT: California's Prima Facie limit is 65, so it's not like speed is entirely unenforceable. But, a non-freeway road with more than two lanes and a limit of 45 without a speed study would have little enforcement below 65, for example.

[Ketchup99]

I wish PA was like CA in this respect - well-maintained roads with high limits. Instead, we have trashy roads with low speed limits. 

Combining CA's attitude to local limits with Texas' attitude to rural limits seems ideal in my book.

[michravera]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

Another: the 133, south of the 405. Its appearance is also very freeway-like, although it has a couple signals immediately south of the 405. It remains as 65 before it drops to 60 immediately prior (spin camera around) to the parclo interchange with the 73 Toll Road, several miles south.

I swear on my life that there's another somewhere, and a decidedly more suburban example at that, but I can't find it.

And route one north of Boston (non freeway part) can't get above 50...

Two big things (second thing being the most important):

1) these Orange County arterials are of extremely high quality, with good pavement, limited access, straightened curves, and wide lanes.

2) California has strict "speed trap" laws that prevent enforcement of speeds along roadways that have not had speed studies performed recently. These speed studies generally result in limits posted near the 85th percentile, which along many of these Orange County arterials, are pretty high. Some municipalities might have an arbitrary cap on limits within certain areas, or along certain types of roads. It's tougher to do this in California because posted limits are basically unenforceable if there isn't a speed study showing that limit to be appropriate.

As an example for number 2, look at the link I posted for the 133: the limit is 65, despite having signals and traditional right and left turn lanes. Some places might put a speed limit cap on roads like this (eg, "roads with signals cannot be higher than 55"), but California simply doesn't. If Orange County or Caltrans wanted to lower the limit, they certainly could. But it would not be enforceable (to a reasonable degree**) without a speed study showing something under 65 to be more appropriate.

** EDIT: California's Prima Facie limit is 65, so it's not like speed is entirely unenforceable. But, a non-freeway road with more than two lanes and a limit of 45 without a speed study would have little enforcement below 65, for example.

California's Statutory Maximum on Non-Freeways is 65MPH. The Prima Facie limit is whatever lower limit might be posted. Tickets issued for violating PF speed limits in California may be overcome with "Competent Evidence" that the speed traveled was safe and reasonable. I have asked a (now former) Law Clerk for the California State Court of Appeals how strong "Competent Evidence" is. His answer was that CVC 22350 is the only place in the Statutes where it is used and that no case had ever come before the Court of Appeals causing the term to be defined, but, like me, he assumed that it would be sronger than that required to the inject "Reasonable Doubt" but far a far lower standard than "Preponderance of the Evidence".

[Roadgeekteen]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

Another: the 133, south of the 405. Its appearance is also very freeway-like, although it has a couple signals immediately south of the 405. It remains as 65 before it drops to 60 immediately prior (spin camera around) to the parclo interchange with the 73 Toll Road, several miles south.

I swear on my life that there's another somewhere, and a decidedly more suburban example at that, but I can't find it.

And route one north of Boston (non freeway part) can't get above 50...

Two big things (second thing being the most important):

1) these Orange County arterials are of extremely high quality, with good pavement, limited access, straightened curves, and wide lanes.

2) California has strict "speed trap" laws that prevent enforcement of speeds along roadways that have not had speed studies performed recently. These speed studies generally result in limits posted near the 85th percentile, which along many of these Orange County arterials, are pretty high. Some municipalities might have an arbitrary cap on limits within certain areas, or along certain types of roads. It's tougher to do this in California because posted limits are basically unenforceable if there isn't a speed study showing that limit to be appropriate.

As an example for number 2, look at the link I posted for the 133: the limit is 65, despite having signals and traditional right and left turn lanes. Some places might put a speed limit cap on roads like this (eg, "roads with signals cannot be higher than 55"), but California simply doesn't. If Orange County or Caltrans wanted to lower the limit, they certainly could. But it would not be enforceable (to a reasonable degree**) without a speed study showing something under 65 to be more appropriate.

** EDIT: California's Prima Facie limit is 65, so it's not like speed is entirely unenforceable. But, a non-freeway road with more than two lanes and a limit of 45 without a speed study would have little enforcement below 65, for example.

California's Statutory Maximum on Non-Freeways is 65MPH. The Prima Facie limit is whatever lower limit might be posted. Tickets issued for violating PF speed limits in California may be overcome with "Competent Evidence" that the speed traveled was safe and reasonable. I have asked a (now former) Law Clerk for the California State Court of Appeals how strong "Competent Evidence" is. His answer was that CVC 22350 is the only place in the Statutes where it is used and that no case had ever come before the Court of Appeals causing the term to be defined, but, like me, he assumed that it would be sronger than that required to the inject "Reasonable Doubt" but far a far lower standard than "Preponderance of the Evidence".

Surprised that California lets 65 on suburban 4 lane roads but doesn't allow 75 on rural freeways.

[sprjus4]

I can't find it yet, but I'm 99% sure there's still an arterial posted at 65 somewhere in Orange County.

This one is still posted at 65 mph, though it's only a 1 mile segment and there's an interchange in the middle with no at-grade intersections. It's practically a small freeway segment if anything.

Another: the 133, south of the 405. Its appearance is also very freeway-like, although it has a couple signals immediately south of the 405. It remains as 65 before it drops to 60 immediately prior (spin camera around) to the parclo interchange with the 73 Toll Road, several miles south.

I swear on my life that there's another somewhere, and a decidedly more suburban example at that, but I can't find it.

And route one north of Boston (non freeway part) can't get above 50...

Two big things (second thing being the most important):

1) these Orange County arterials are of extremely high quality, with good pavement, limited access, straightened curves, and wide lanes.

2) California has strict "speed trap" laws that prevent enforcement of speeds along roadways that have not had speed studies performed recently. These speed studies generally result in limits posted near the 85th percentile, which along many of these Orange County arterials, are pretty high. Some municipalities might have an arbitrary cap on limits within certain areas, or along certain types of roads. It's tougher to do this in California because posted limits are basically unenforceable if there isn't a speed study showing that limit to be appropriate.

As an example for number 2, look at the link I posted for the 133: the limit is 65, despite having signals and traditional right and left turn lanes. Some places might put a speed limit cap on roads like this (eg, "roads with signals cannot be higher than 55"), but California simply doesn't. If Orange County or Caltrans wanted to lower the limit, they certainly could. But it would not be enforceable (to a reasonable degree**) without a speed study showing something under 65 to be more appropriate.

** EDIT: California's Prima Facie limit is 65, so it's not like speed is entirely unenforceable. But, a non-freeway road with more than two lanes and a limit of 45 without a speed study would have little enforcement below 65, for example.

California's Statutory Maximum on Non-Freeways is 65MPH. The Prima Facie limit is whatever lower limit might be posted. Tickets issued for violating PF speed limits in California may be overcome with "Competent Evidence" that the speed traveled was safe and reasonable. I have asked a (now former) Law Clerk for the California State Court of Appeals how strong "Competent Evidence" is. His answer was that CVC 22350 is the only place in the Statutes where it is used and that no case had ever come before the Court of Appeals causing the term to be defined, but, like me, he assumed that it would be sronger than that required to the inject "Reasonable Doubt" but far a far lower standard than "Preponderance of the Evidence".

Surprised that California lets 65 on suburban 4 lane roads but doesn't allow 75 on rural freeways.

Statutory maximum of 70 mph on freeways, 65 mph on all other roads. No limits to what can go up to 65 mph, two-lane, four-lane divided highway, urban arterial, etc.

[Ketchup99]

Seems like Caltrans (which posts great speed limits where they can) is in favor of high speed limits, while the Legislature (capping it at 70) is very much not.