Move over, Texas. Looks like the home of the automobile wants to raise their speed limits to 80 MPH.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130823/METRO05/308230058/1361/Lawmakers-look-at-raising-speed-limits-to-80-mph-in-Michigan
I find this hard to believe as the speed limit is 55 mph on the expressway part of US 127 north of St. Johns where other states at least allow 60 mph on non freeway divided highways. I heard rumors it has been changed, though, but it was allowed for many years.
Hell, they treat the freeways as the "Michibahn" in Detroit already. 80 mph would just be somewhat close to the flow speed on the Jeffries (I-96).
Georgia is known for its "southern cops" and yet Atlanta has 80 mph on its freeways as well. Cities are far different from the states they are in.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 23, 2013, 09:21:49 AM
I find this hard to believe as the speed limit is 55 mph on the expressway part of US 127 north of St. Johns where other states at least allow 60 mph on non freeway divided highways. I heard rumors it has been changed, though, but it was allowed for many years.
It's 65 now.
Anyway, MDoT should
increase eliminate the truck speed limit before they increase the car speed limit.
I say go for it!
It's about time Michigan followed the lead of Texas and Utah. Bring on 80 mph!
Here's the story with more information from the Detroit Free Press:
Michigan lawmakers investigate increasing some speed limits (http://www.freep.com/article/20130823/NEWS06/308230041/Michigan-lawmakers-look-at-lifting-highway-speed-limits)
QuoteThe proposal has initial support from the State Police, which – along with the Michigan Department of Transportation and county road commissions – is responsible for setting speed limits on state highways and interstates in Michigan.
Lt. Gary Megge of the State Police's traffic services section said most posted speed limits across Michigan are "artificially low" and don't reflect reasonable traffic patterns. In some cases, that makes roadways more dangerous, he said.
He pointed to metro Detroit freeways where the posted limit is 55 m.p.h. but the majority of drivers are traveling about 70 m.p.h.
"If they set their cruise control on 55 m.p.h., we're truly forcing those people to be some of the most hazardous on the road," Megge said. "They may not be hazardous, but because everyone else is going faster – they're causing chaos."
Sanity.
Michigan has been pretty sane about speed limits for a while now, the truck speed limit excepted. And frankly, slow trucks are the bane of my existence every time I drive I-94 across southern Michigan.
I don't see a problem with most freeways going to 75 or 80, particularly if the truck limit is raised to match. I highly doubt they would post above 70mph in urban areas, but there's plenty of stretches that could do it.
What I would love to see are higher-grade 2-lanes like US-2, M-28, or M-115 being bumped up to 60 or 65 as a result of this bill.
I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.
Quote from: Steve on August 24, 2013, 12:30:19 AM
I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.
How often have you driven there? I've been caught in more than a few heavy traffic flows moving along at 80-85 around Metro Detroit. There may be more than a few surprises when the 85th percentile data comes back.
Quote from: Steve on August 24, 2013, 12:30:19 AM
I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.
Least for me, I-196 and US 131 are pretty wide open. The only congested area where I wouldn't do 80 is entering and leaving Grand Rapids
Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.
80 MPH in Michigan, especially in the I-94 Detroit-Chicago corridor is a no brainer.
I remember my college days in which I took the "Free" way from Toledo to Chicago via I-94, and I couldn't even tell you how fast I was going for two straight hours -- I drove a 1983 Nissan Sentra with a speedometer which would "peg" at 85 MPH!!!
I'd be down with Michigan carrying 80 mph speed limits. The only portion I'd leave alone is the immediate downtown section of Grand Rapids. Otherwise, game on!
Quote from: SP Cook on August 24, 2013, 12:21:46 PM
Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.
Are you correcting for background improvements in safety when comparing the effect of an SL rise? I would be willing to agree that crashes don't rise when SLs rise, but I have a harder time believing they fall.
Quote from: Steve on August 25, 2013, 07:51:02 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 24, 2013, 12:21:46 PM
Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.
Are you correcting for background improvements in safety when comparing the effect of an SL rise? I would be willing to agree that crashes don't rise when SLs rise, but I have a harder time believing they fall.
Look at it this way. With a speed limit increase on the freeways, you are driving traffic to the safest roads we have and away from roads with many intersections where most accidents, and the majority of fatal accidents occur. That's why they can fall with a speed limit increase.
Mike Thompson from the Detroit Free Press had a hilarious cartoon on the subject, referencing another big highway debate in Lansing. http://www.freep.com/article/20130826/BLOG24/130825002/Michigan-speed-limit-autos
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 26, 2013, 08:50:22 AM
Mike Thompson from the Detroit Free Press had a hilarious cartoon on the subject, referencing another big highway debate in Lansing. http://www.freep.com/article/20130826/BLOG24/130825002/Michigan-speed-limit-autos
Funny thing is, I've noticed Michiganders seem to have a very high standard for a road surface. What's considered potholed there is considered fully drivable in Illinois.
Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2013, 09:44:46 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on August 26, 2013, 08:50:22 AM
Mike Thompson from the Detroit Free Press had a hilarious cartoon on the subject, referencing another big highway debate in Lansing. http://www.freep.com/article/20130826/BLOG24/130825002/Michigan-speed-limit-autos
Funny thing is, I've noticed Michiganders seem to have a very high standard for a road surface. What's considered potholed there is considered fully drivable in Illinois.
The state highways are generally very well maintained in Michigan. The county roads and city streets? Not so much. This is the state that turned paved primary roads back to gravel before Texas made the news for it.
Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2013, 02:25:00 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 25, 2013, 07:51:02 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 24, 2013, 12:21:46 PM
Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.
Are you correcting for background improvements in safety when comparing the effect of an SL rise? I would be willing to agree that crashes don't rise when SLs rise, but I have a harder time believing they fall.
Look at it this way. With a speed limit increase on the freeways, you are driving traffic to the safest roads we have and away from roads with many intersections where most accidents, and the majority of fatal accidents occur. That's why they can fall with a speed limit increase.
To a point. 55 to 65 or 70? Absolutely. 70 to 80? You're really not diverting much traffic at that point. The freeway is already faster enough.
A few thoughts (I'm not quoting anyone, because I'd have to put half the thread in here)...
-US 127 from St. Johns to Ithaca is not the only non-freeway that's faster than 55. US 2/US 41 from Gladstone to their split in Rapid River is a 65 mph expressway. The expressway portion of M-53 is 70, though MDOT stupidly reduces it to 55 for every single intersection. That said, I agree that MDOT needs to be more flexible about this and start applying it to two-lane roads as well. Maybe keep divided expressways/surface roads to 70 and high quality two-lane highways to 65?
-Will be interesting to see what MDOT keeps at 70 or lower if this passes. There is a precedent for this, since I-96 stayed at 65 through the US 131 interchange and Grand River bridge for quite a few years. I must be a wimp, because I think 70 for US 131 in downtown Grand Rapids is already too high (at least from Leonard to Wealthy), and 70 for I-496 in downtown Lansing is borderline.
-The truck speed limit was raised from 55 to 60 a few years ago... but I see a fair number of trucks (not all) going 65-67. Most aren't going to drive faster than this no matter what, either because they have speed governors or to save fuel. Trucks are annoying everywhere. Do you guys really think removing the truck speed limit will change much?
-Would construction zones still have "When Workers Present 45", or would it get bumped up?
:no: ... I just don't have a good feeling about this. The condition of some stretches of freeway here is absolutely atrocious. I could see 75 mph as reality on highways north of, say, US-10. But downstate? WAY too much traffic. Besides, they have GOT to do something about the damn frost heaves. Much of southbound US-23 from Fenton to the M-14 west triple-decker at Ann Arbor is like having speed bumps every hundred feet or so. I'm not comfortable hitting those at 80 mph. They can leave the speed limit at 70 mph on the freeways. What they NEED to do is follow state law and re-examine speed limits on the secondary and local roads, as well as fix the timing of traffic lights so traffic can move more smoothly.
:banghead:
I spend more time thinking about shit like this than I should. I have plenty of time, being stuck in Ann Arbor traffic every day.
:bigass:
Most roads can handle it. Texas has 85 and that's with our awful drivers.
Reform Michigan's speed limit laws (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130830/OPINION01/308300010/Reform-Michigan-s-speed-limit-laws?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp) (Detroit News)
QuoteHighway engineering studies show that the safest roads are those where speed limits are set at the rate at which 85 percent of motorists travel, thus reducing speed differentials and the likelihood of rear-end crashes and side swipes. But due to political initiatives to increase ticket revenue, save gas and reduce speeds, politicians have for too long set artificially low speed limits.
Quote"Politicians should never set speed limits," says Jones, whose bill will close a loophole in a 2006 law requiring road agencies to set speed limits based on traffic studies. "That's how you get speed traps. It should be done scientifically by the Michigan State Police or the police in areas where a study is done."
Jones' primary concern is revenue-raising speed traps that unfairly target drivers, which is why the Michigan Municipal League opposes his efforts.
You don't say. They make money that way, and Jones, rightly, is proposing real speed limits, not speed trap crap.
Quote"With artificially low speed limits we put police in a position of actually ticketing safe drivers. I want to see drivers traveling within a 10-mph band of one another," says Lt. Gary Megge of State Police Traffic Services, who advocates the 85th percentile rule, adding that fewer speed traps means officers will have more time to devote to bigger safety issues like intoxicated and distracted driving.
Our Eisenhower-built interstate highway system was designed for 85-mph travel in 1950s-era cars. By setting more rational limits that reduce travel time on interstates, road engineers also find that traffic is drawn away from narrower, more dangerous secondary roads.
Exactly. Use the cops to look for the real dangers, not someone driving an interstate at 80-85.
Regarding the 85th percentile speed... I question sometimes whether it works 100% of the time.
It does the job on a road that's been around for decades and driven mostly by people who know it well. But on a highway with a lot of long-distance travelers, or in a touristy area, there can be hazards (pedestrians, narrow lanes, blind intersections whatever) that aren't immediately obvious to the many who haven't driven it before. If the DOT looks at what drivers do and says "Well, that's it, we'll post the same speed most drivers are already going", nothing really changes. People who speed are going to speed regardless, and people who go too slowly will do that regardless. I don't see much difference from just posting "Reasonable and Prudent", except it's easier to issue tickets.
I know, I know, there's plenty of studies validating the 85th percentile. This is just how my brain works, is all. :spin:
Also something to consider: There are freeways, like US 131 through the I-196 interchange that I mentioned before, where the speed limit is now higher than than the design speed. It would be nice to take design speed into consideration... except then you wind up with roads that are purposely designed for slower speeds than they could be, with traffic "calming" measures and the like. I'm not sure what the solution is.
85th percentile is not for roads where non-obvious hazards exist or drivers are particularly shitty.
There was an article in today's Grand Rapids Press:
80 mph freeway speed limits? West Michigan lawmakers wary of proposal (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/80_mph_freeway_speed_limits_we.html)
Interestingly, a slight majority of the comments (ugh, newspaper comments!) are against it. I've never seen a significant number of people against raising a state speed limit before.
Quote from: getemngo on September 03, 2013, 07:38:04 PM(ugh, newspaper comments!) are against it
it's either too gay, or not gay enough... I can never remember which.
yeah, newspaper comments tend to be awful.
Quote from: getemngo on September 03, 2013, 07:38:04 PM
There was an article in today's Grand Rapids Press:
80 mph freeway speed limits? West Michigan lawmakers wary of proposal (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/80_mph_freeway_speed_limits_we.html)
Interestingly, a slight majority of the comments (ugh, newspaper comments!) are against it. I've never seen a significant number of people against raising a state speed limit before.
Not too surprising that west coast folks might not like it. They drive too slow anyway. It's always been Yoopers and Detroiters who fly like bats out of hell, but rarely folks from the west coast. One can usually note a progression in speed heading from west to east along I-94 or I-96. Near the Lake Michigan shoreline, people stick closer to the 70 mph limit. As one goes east, the speeds increase until one crosses US-23 where the flow has a major uptick from 75 to 85 mph.
The "speed kills" lobby is ironically strong in Michigan.
Newspaper comments typically attract the vocal minority crowd. Or people that read half the story...and sometimes, barely get past the headline.
Quote from: Brandon on September 03, 2013, 09:02:06 PM
Not too surprising that west coast folks might not like it. They drive too slow anyway. It's always been Yoopers and Detroiters who fly like bats out of hell, but rarely folks from the west coast. One can usually note a progression in speed heading from west to east along I-94 or I-96. Near the Lake Michigan shoreline, people stick closer to the 70 mph limit. As one goes east, the speeds increase until one crosses US-23 where the flow has a major uptick from 75 to 85 mph.
In my experience, US 127 is the slow/fast dividing line, at least on I-69 and I-96. I-94 has the fastest traffic in West Michigan, so it's harder to gauge. It's sad that, growing up, I thought the "I'm from Michigan, of course I speed!" meme meant we all go 74. :no:
Quote from: thenetwork on August 24, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
80 MPH in Michigan, especially in the I-94 Detroit-Chicago corridor is a no brainer.
I remember my college days in which I took the "Free" way from Toledo to Chicago via I-94, and I couldn't even tell you how fast I was going for two straight hours -- I drove a 1983 Nissan Sentra with a speedometer which would "peg" at 85 MPH!!!
The only time I personally drove I-94 into Michigan, I ended up going 88 mph (mostly in Indiana, actually, but then into Michigan for a tiny bit), and that seemed to be just a smidge above average. At least three other drivers were doing basically the exact same speed. We were in a hurry, and I took advantage of the favorable flow of traffic.
What Michigan really needs is higher speed limits on conventional highways. 55 across the Seney Stretch, for example, is completely idiotic. There's no reason the vast majority of two-lane highways can't have 65.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:51:03 PM
What Michigan really needs is higher speed limits on conventional highways. 55 across the Seney Stretch, for example, is completely idiotic. There's no reason the vast majority of two-lane highways can't have 65.
I'll echo that sentiment, having driven the Seney Stretch many, many times.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 04, 2013, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:51:03 PM
What Michigan really needs is higher speed limits on conventional highways. 55 across the Seney Stretch, for example, is completely idiotic. There's no reason the vast majority of two-lane highways can't have 65.
I'll echo that sentiment, having driven the Seney Stretch many, many times.
The Seney Stretch could use 70 mph very easily. Great sight lines, dead straight for 25 miles.
A year and a half later, and they're at it again!
80 mph speed limits could hit some Michigan highways under new House proposal (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/12/80_mph_speed_limits_could_hit.html)
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:51:03 PM
What Michigan really needs is higher speed limits on conventional highways. 55 across the Seney Stretch, for example, is completely idiotic. There's no reason the vast majority of two-lane highways can't have 65.
This.
I think they should consider the possibility of returning secondary highways to 65 mph, which is what they were before the national 55 mph speed limit was put into place in 1974.
:hmmm:
Using the exact same stock photo even!
Quote from: getemngo on December 01, 2014, 09:56:03 PM
A year and a half later, and they're at it again!
80 mph speed limits could hit some Michigan highways under new House proposal (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/12/80_mph_speed_limits_could_hit.html)
Quote from: DevalDragon on December 02, 2014, 03:33:01 AM
Using the exact same stock photo even!
Hadn't even noticed that! That's southbound US 131 at Ann Street in Grand Rapids. That sign used to be the point where the speed limit dropped from 70 to 55 for Grand Rapids - the first southbound Speed Limit 55 sign - until all of US 131 was raised to 70.
Quote from: Alps on August 24, 2013, 12:30:19 AM
I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.
But the drivers are crazy. When I was a new driver back in 1987 and went to the UP I was shocked how drivers pass 4 cars at a time on a two-lane road like US 2. After a few days I was doing it too.
I can go for 80mph since most drivers drive that fast anyways the last time I drove there this year. I can not see I-94 going 80 unless it is expanded to 6 lanes between Detroit, & where the current 6 lanes comes in around I-196 to the Indiana State Line. Too many 18 Wheelers, & slower traffic to go around.
I've argued for years that Michigan's state-maintained 4-lane divided and 5-lane highways should be posted for 60 - 65mph. Particularly in remote areas, the current 55mph postings are a joke. I wouldn't post any 2-lane for 70mph - there's too much traffic and not enough 2-lane roads built for that kind of speed in Michigan.
US-131 between Schoolcraft and Three Rivers should also get a boost to 65mph (with truck limits abolished), as well as the 4-lane divided section of M-99 between Lansing and Eaton Rapids. M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland can also be raised in the more rural areas to 65mph, as should US-31 between Grand Haven and Holland (if it isn't already).
I expect 80mph limits would be limited to the freeway stretches north of US-10. I could also see them on US-31 north of Muskegon, US-127 north of Ithaca, and I-69 east of Flint. All of these are lighter-traffic stretches in relatively rural areas. I would also like to see the truck speed limits either abolished or raised to 70mph (fully acknowledging most trucks are governed between 62 and 68mph.)
I could also see 75mph posted as the default on most freeways, with truck limits raised to at least 65mph. However, there are several stretches (US-23 between Ann Arbor and Flint, I-94 in Jackson, US-131 through Grand Rapids) which have safety concerns that need to be addressed before raising their limits.
I would also like to see safety improvements (longer acceleration/deceleration lanes, wider shoulders, additional lanes in more congested areas) before 80mph becomes commonplace on freeways downstate.