One of my biggest dislikings is when the speed limit abruptly changes at the state line, such as do two-lane highways at the Missouri line (they either go from 60 up to 65 or down to 55). I have proposed an act that states can voluntarily opt into, just as would the Nonresident Violator Compact, which would provide that each state adopts the same standard speed limits:
-Interstates and Freeways: 75 mph (can go up to 80 or 85 after study)
-Four-lane expressways / Two-lane freeways: 70 mph (can go up to 75 or 80 after study)
-Four-lane highways (non-expressway) and Two-lane highways: 65 mph (can go up to 70 or 75 after study)
-Posted Minimum (for freeways): 25 mph below posted speed limit
-Urban areas: Speed Reduced to at least 65 mph in large cities (unless 80 mph limit is used, in which case, 75 mph small city, 70 mph large city)
These are only "suggested standards". They can be lowered to any speed as needed, such as going through a large city or if the design of the roadway cannot support as high of speeds as mentioned before.
Isn't this basically what the 55 MPH law was?
Maybe we need Congress to step in and stop this tomfoolery by establishing some standards for at least interstate and US highways.
ISTM you'd be better off pursuing agreements about advance notice of speed limit changes at borders, but I'm not sure that's a real problem. State DOTs will probably choke on the proposed uniform speed limits (some western states would think them too low, some eastern states would think them too high, and all would be unhappy about applying minimums in work zones, or on curvy mountain roads).
Speaking from Texas, I'm not a fan of this idea. We have two-lane highways with no shoulders with speed limits of 75. If there's a long sight distance and little traffic (the kind of road we have a lot of), 75 is just fine. Many narrow farm to market roads have speed limits of 60, which is higher than the proposed limit but still unreasonably slow in many places.
A straight, flat rural two-lane highway with miles of visibility and almost no traffic or intersecting roads is very different than a curvy, hilly rural two-lane highway with restricted visibility and heavy traffic and lots of intersections. No single speed limit is suitable for both.
I think a better approach is for all of the states to set reasonable speed limits. This is based on conditions and not uniform numbers. There's no reason for a speed limit of 75 in Texas to reduce to 65 in Oklahoma on the same road with the same conditions. If both states set reasonable limits, there may still be changes at state lines when the road is designed differently, but not because of imaginary lines. Speed limits would still generally vary by region, but that's entirely appropriate because of topography, visibility, development, and traffic density.
The idea might work on a regional scale, especially in small states where state lines are crossed frequently and conditions are substantially similar in different states (such as New England) or where a highway cuts corners of different states and there's no reason to have different speed limits in each one. If we could, somehow, get all of the states to agree to a national agreement, it should be even easier to get them to agree to set more reasonable limits based on the different conditions that exist. That seems to be slowly happening on its own, with speed limits rising here and there.
One thing I'd like to see is separation of establishing and enforcing speed limits. A city or county should not have unlimited discretion to set speed limits and collect fines for violations. State highway speed limits should be set by the state, by a department that does not receive traffic fine money. Local road speed limits should be set in a way that's relatively uniform, with good reason needed for any that are abnormally low.
We could adopt an NSL of 85 or 90 for freeways, and 75 for 2-lane highways, alongside an NSL sign (as seen in Europe and other parts of the world). Roads not fit for either limit could be posted as usual. Not sure what the advantage would be in doing so. Just a thought.
I am against the idea of blanket speed limits; speed limits should be determined by traffic safety studies. At the same time, speed limits should not be set for revenue generation.
Absolutely no. Since you stated speed limits can be reduced if engineering warrants, you are essentially reducing the top limit in many cases, and states are still able to have significant limit reductions at the state border.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 17, 2016, 03:45:13 PM
We could adopt an NSL of 85 or 90 for freeways, and 75 for 2-lane highways, alongside an NSL sign (as seen in Europe and other parts of the world). Roads not fit for either limit could be posted as usual. Not sure what the advantage would be in doing so. Just a thought.
These seem a tad high to me in a lot of cases. Personally, given unlimited authority to do so, I would set most rural freeway speed limits at 70 and 75 m.p.h. (depending on a number of factors) and reserve 80 m.p.h. for the more remote stretches of the western states. (As are now frequently posted in Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.)
Suburban freeways should typically be 60 to 70 m.p.h., again depending on conditions specific to any given segment while on "inner-city" freeways sometimes speed limits as low as 50 or 55 m.p.h. are appropriate.
Rural 4 lane highways should typically range from 60 to 70 m.p.h.
Two lane highways almost really need to be taken on a case by case basis. Speeds as high as 75 m.p.h. are perfectly reasonable on some while speed limits as low as 50 m.p.h. are perfectly reasonable on others.
Being from Oregon, anytime I see a speed limit sign with a limit of 70 m.p.h. or higher on a freeway or 60 m.p.h. or higher on a 2 lane road I am happy. I oppose any kind of "National Speed Limit" on the grounds that it is not compatible with either the letter or spirit of the 10th Amendment.
I DO however like the idea of the European style "State Speed Limit" signs being posted at each state border showing maximum or default speed limits for each class of road within the state being entered.
And as a final note, as much as I would like to see a "Montana style" reasonable and prudent law rather than numeric limits, I think this would be problematic in most of the more populated areas due to the fact that too many people would have too many different ideas as to what was "reasonable and prudent" resulting in Prius drivers from Portland wanting to drive 55 while that family with the wood grain paneled station wagon from Clearfield Utah would be perfectly fine at 70 - 85 on the same road. While this sort of thing would not pose that much of a problem on say I-15 north of Idaho Falls or most of I-82, I could see it being very problematic on more congested rural freeways such as much of I-5 or even I-84 in the western part of the Columbia Gorge.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 17, 2016, 03:09:46 PM
Isn't this basically what the 55 MPH law was?
Maybe we need Congress to step in and stop this tomfoolery by establishing some standards for at least interstate and US highways.
Quote from: wxfree on January 17, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Speaking from Texas, I'm not a fan of this idea. We have two-lane highways with no shoulders with speed limits of 75. If there's a long sight distance and little traffic (the kind of road we have a lot of), 75 is just fine. Many narrow farm to market roads have speed limits of 60, which is higher than the proposed limit but still unreasonably slow in many places.
A straight, flat rural two-lane highway with miles of visibility and almost no traffic or intersecting roads is very different than a curvy, hilly rural two-lane highway with restricted visibility and heavy traffic and lots of intersections. No single speed limit is suitable for both.
I think a better approach is for all of the states to set reasonable speed limits. This is based on conditions and not uniform numbers. There's no reason for a speed limit of 75 in Texas to reduce to 65 in Oklahoma on the same road with the same conditions. If both states set reasonable limits, there may still be changes at state lines when the road is designed differently, but not because of imaginary lines. Speed limits would still generally vary by region, but that's entirely appropriate because of topography, visibility, development, and traffic density.
The idea might work on a regional scale, especially in small states where state lines are crossed frequently and conditions are substantially similar in different states (such as New England) or where a highway cuts corners of different states and there's no reason to have different speed limits in each one. If we could, somehow, get all of the states to agree to a national agreement, it should be even easier to get them to agree to set more reasonable limits based on the different conditions that exist. That seems to be slowly happening on its own, with speed limits rising here and there.
One thing I'd like to see is separation of establishing and enforcing speed limits. A city or county should not have unlimited discretion to set speed limits and collect fines for violations. State highway speed limits should be set by the state, by a department that does not receive traffic fine money. Local road speed limits should be set in a way that's relatively uniform, with good reason needed for any that are abnormally low.
I am not sure about the specific numbers, but all I know is that 1) I do not like arbitrary changes at the state line just because of that state's laws, and 2) I would like to see speeds more such like people drive, which in most cases is 75-80. I just would like a uniform "standards" that would be raised/lowered not due to arbitrary laws but by change in roadway design.
Also, in case many people did not understand, the minimum 25 mph below limit means that, for example, would be "speed limit 75, minimum 50" or "speed limit 80, minimum 55", where the posted minimum be 25 mph below the rural speed limit.
The NMSL was abolished for a reason, and there is no reason to go back to uniform speed limits, and with the current tenor of "states' rights" and "the federal government is too big," this won't fly. Also, until uniform quality of roads from state to state can be achieved, this is a non starter.
Here's my attempt at retrying this horrible thing.
Interstates: 85 or 90 mph (rural), 70 mph (urban) - trucks get 80 mph (rural), 70 mph (urban)
Expressways: 75 or 80 mph (rural), 65 mph (urban) - trucks 70 or 75 mph (rural), 65 mph (urban)
Four lane divided highways: 75 mph (rural), 60 mph (urban) - trucks 70 mph (rural), 60 or 55 mph (urban)
Two lane roads: 80 or 85 mph (rural), 60 mph (urban), trucks 75 or 80 mph (rural), 60 or 55 mph (urban)
I may be pushing it a little too hard on the speed limits for urban areas...
Even if this were a thing, that wouldn't change driver culture over state lines. For example, on I-94 (particularly westbound) I've noticed that traffic tends to go around 80 in Michigan and 70-75 in Indiana, even though the speed limit doesn't change.
Ditto on the states rights things. The feds already regulate too much across the board, like drinking age and BA limits. States should be free to set their own speed limits.
In Kentucky, speed limits on state roads are set by the state.
No. Just no. Limits in the northeast need to go up, but most countries with a national speed limit are much smaller with less variation in topography. Most European countries are smaller than many US states. Even in Europe, speed limits aren't always uniform because rough terrain demands a lower limit.
New York requires NYSDOT to approve all changes to speed limits, which prevents some of the nonsense in small towns. If every other state had a requirement, you wouldn't have as many speed trap towns.
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.
If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.
A tad bit O.T., but I recently found myself going at about 75 on the I-290 and I-90 in NY for the first time, rushing. These highways should be at least 65 MPH, not 55, because I had no problem at all with curves or traffic when in the rightmost lane. Ramps are also signed "conservatively" in NY with speeds like 35 and 40 MPH for some Y-junctions that could be taken at 60 MPH. I think the tolled portion should be 75.
As to the topic, I somewhat agree with what you're proposing, but the issue is that highways are not standardized, straight lines.
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the instrumentalities thereof. On things like interstate highways, I'm in favor of more uniformity than not and generally don't buy the states rights argument for them, mainly because if you stretch it far enough, you could argue that each state should set the standards for what constitutes an "interstate highway."
Without getting political, I don't think that we can shout "STATES RIGHTS" when it comes to things like interstate highways, which have federally defined standards. How are speed limits different than things like mandated shoulder lengths?
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 17, 2016, 08:55:30 PM
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the instrumentalities thereof. On things like interstate highways, I'm in favor of more uniformity than not and generally don't buy the states rights argument for them, mainly because if you stretch it far enough, you could argue that each state should set the standards for what constitutes an "interstate highway."
Without getting political, I don't think that we can shout "STATES RIGHTS" when it comes to things like interstate highways, which have federally defined standards. How are speed limits different than things like mandated shoulder lengths?
And the Federal Government has done this in the past, but has since rescinded this back to the states to decide what is best for them.
OP seemed only miffed that he had to speed-up or slow-down at the state line; would be best to simply call on state crossings to have speed limit change ahead signs instead of trying to kill a spider by burning the house down. :ded:
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.
If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.
I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong–maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 17, 2016, 08:55:30 PM
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the instrumentalities thereof. On things like interstate highways, I'm in favor of more uniformity than not and generally don't buy the states rights argument for them, mainly because if you stretch it far enough, you could argue that each state should set the standards for what constitutes an "interstate highway."
Without getting political, I don't think that we can shout "STATES RIGHTS" when it comes to things like interstate highways, which have federally defined standards. How are speed limits different than things like mandated shoulder lengths?
Because there's various standards in how an interstate highway (and all roads, for that matter) should be built. But there's various conditions that more localized departments need to handle. A 4 lane highway in Nebraska with a traffic count of several thousands is going to have a different speed limit than a 4 lane highway in New Jersey that approaches 70,000 vehicles daily. Or different than a winding highway thru the Rockies.
Speed limits have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Interstate commerce really doesn't have anything to do with interstate highways, generally speaking. One is simply used as a means of transporting products throughout the country, but it's hardly the only method by far.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.
If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.
I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong–maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).
I would settle for a "you can't lower the speed limit by more than x% within x miles of a state line." I'm not saying that we should have uniform speed limits but I am saying that Congress wouldn't be entirely out of line to step in and set some standards. They can be as flexible as you like but they should definitely exist. If I'm driving into a new state, I should not be caught off guard by a sudden drop in speed limits. I've seen cops waiting on state lines, waiting to bust unsuspecting drivers who are unaware of the speed limit drop as they cross the state line. We need to discourage THAT kind of behavior.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2016, 11:19:03 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 17, 2016, 08:55:30 PM
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the instrumentalities thereof. On things like interstate highways, I'm in favor of more uniformity than not and generally don't buy the states rights argument for them, mainly because if you stretch it far enough, you could argue that each state should set the standards for what constitutes an "interstate highway."
Without getting political, I don't think that we can shout "STATES RIGHTS" when it comes to things like interstate highways, which have federally defined standards. How are speed limits different than things like mandated shoulder lengths?
Because there's various standards in how an interstate highway (and all roads, for that matter) should be built. But there's various conditions that more localized departments need to handle. A 4 lane highway in Nebraska with a traffic count of several thousands is going to have a different speed limit than a 4 lane highway in New Jersey that approaches 70,000 vehicles daily. Or different than a winding highway thru the Rockies.
Speed limits have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Interstate commerce really doesn't have anything to do with interstate highways, generally speaking. One is simply used as a means of transporting products throughout the country, but it's hardly the only method by far.
Courts have defined "interstate commerce" more broadly than you have here though. If I travel to New Hampshire to buy liquor and transport it back to Maine then I have engaged in interstate commerce. The fact is, interstate highways make it easier for me to travel to other states. In fact, the primary purpose of interstate highways is to facilitate long distance travel and thus interstate commerce.
Speed limits may not have anything to do with it directly but Congress has the right to regulate interstate highways, which gives them carte blanche to really do whatever they want with them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2016, 11:19:03 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 17, 2016, 08:55:30 PM
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce and the instrumentalities thereof. On things like interstate highways, I'm in favor of more uniformity than not and generally don't buy the states rights argument for them, mainly because if you stretch it far enough, you could argue that each state should set the standards for what constitutes an "interstate highway."
Without getting political, I don't think that we can shout "STATES RIGHTS" when it comes to things like interstate highways, which have federally defined standards. How are speed limits different than things like mandated shoulder lengths?
Because there's various standards in how an interstate highway (and all roads, for that matter) should be built. But there's various conditions that more localized departments need to handle. A 4 lane highway in Nebraska with a traffic count of several thousands is going to have a different speed limit than a 4 lane highway in New Jersey that approaches 70,000 vehicles daily. Or different than a winding highway thru the Rockies.
Also note that there are a few groups of Interstate standards that depend on date constructed, terrain, and amount of development. Older standards had lower design speeds, especially if sections predate the Interstate system. The current Green Book has, at a quick glance, 4 categories for freeways (dense urban, suburban, rural, mountainous), each with different design standards and each meeting Interstate requirements if access control is provided. For relatively-flat rural expressways and where conditions allow, 75+ mph is recommended. Lower design speeds are allowed in urban areas and where terrain is rough because it would be cost-prohibitive and unnecessary to design for 75 mph. That's why, say, if I-86 ever gets completed in Delaware and Sullivan Counties, the alignment and low design speed can be retained, as the standards for mountainous areas will be met (and are met outside of the at-grade section and interchanges). The Eastern Interstates often have lower speed limits than those out west because of terrain and the fact that most sections were built around the beginning of the Interstate system if not before.
The liquor issue is more complicated than just interstate commerce because of the 21st Amendment giving states particular authority they might not otherwise have.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 11:36:56 PM
The liquor issue is more complicated than just interstate commerce because of the 21st Amendment giving states particular authority they might not otherwise have.
That was a probably a bad example. I just picked liquor because people often go to NH for that since it's cheaper. If I go to New Hampshire, buy the new Madden video game and bring it back to Maine then I've engage in interstate commerce.
Still "interstate commerce" is such a vague term that Congress could pass a wide array of bills and claim that it derived its power to do so from the commerce clause.
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 11:36:56 PM
The liquor issue is more complicated than just interstate commerce because of the 21st Amendment giving states particular authority they might not otherwise have.
That was a probably a bad example. I just picked liquor because people often go to NH for that since it's cheaper. If I go to New Hampshire, buy the new Madden video game and bring it back to Maine then I've engage in interstate commerce.
Still "interstate commerce" is such a vague term that Congress could pass a wide array of bills and claim that it derived its power to do so from the commerce clause.
Indeed Congress does do exactly that!
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards. There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.
Although I do agree that speed limit changes at the state line are a pain in my a.. when they reduce but we don't need more federal control. I have to revert to states setting their own speed limits.
Advanced warning of speed limit change would be nice. I think one big improvement would be for each state to not only post their seat belt law also post their helmet law for motorcyclists. I always wear a helmet but many riders don't.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.
Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.
It bears noting the old national speed limit (and the 21 drinking age) was not premised on the Commerce Clause–it was premised on the Spending Clause. Essentially Congress said "if you post a limit over 55, you lose federal highway funds." The courts upheld it because no state has a right to receive federal highway funds.
The wrinkle is that the condition Congress imposes must itself be constitutional. They can't say, for example, "make Islam the only legal religion or you lose highway funds," or "don't allow blacks to vote or you lose highway funds."
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 18, 2016, 02:51:10 PM
It bears noting the old national speed limit (and the 21 drinking age) was not premised on the Commerce Clause–it was premised on the Spending Clause. Essentially Congress said "if you post a limit over 55, you lose federal highway funds." The courts upheld it because no state has a right to receive federal highway funds.
The wrinkle is that the condition Congress imposes must itself be constitutional. They can't say, for example, "make Islam the only legal religion or you lose highway funds," or "don't allow blacks to vote or you lose highway funds."
I wonder how different both of those things would be if passed today. It seems like in the 90s at least, courts became more lenient on letting things slide under the commerce clause argument.
In my experience, states are pretty good about posting their laws and speed limit reductions at or near state lines. North Carolina's signs always stood out for me because of their terminology that motorcyclists must burn their headlights (instead of use headlights or turn on headlights).
And if the feds can set speed limits for interstates since they paid for 90 percent of the cost, does that also mean they should get to set the limits on the ARC corridors or any other roads which received federal aid?
Heh. Those North Carolina "burn headlights" signs always stood out to me too.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2016, 04:11:04 PM
In my experience, states are pretty good about posting their laws and speed limit reductions at or near state lines. North Carolina's signs always stood out for me because of their terminology that motorcyclists must burn their headlights (instead of use headlights or turn on headlights).
And if the feds can set speed limits for interstates since they paid for 90 percent of the cost, does that also mean they should get to set the limits on the ARC corridors or any other roads which received federal aid?
Back when the speed limit dropped from 70 to 65 on I-95 coming from SC to NC, I don't recall there being a sign. Of course the monstrosity that is South of the Border may have distracted me from seeing it if it was there.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 02:13:38 PM
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards. There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.
These standards are meant to be just that. Substandard routes would in turn warrant a substandard speed limit, and above-standard routes would get an above-standard speed limit. The only gain it would give is eliminating speed changes for merely "crossing an imaginary line", reserving those instead for changes in the actual road geometry.
I find that many people drive what is a safe speed, and those that actually drive the speed limit (like I do) are usually passed left and right with slower limits. Several states (such as Michigan) have been talking about an "85th Percentile" speed, and from what I have found, these standard limits are a good generalization (since laws are always black-and-white like that).
Quote from: wxfree on January 17, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Speaking from Texas, I'm not a fan of this idea. We have two-lane highways with no shoulders with speed limits of 75. If there's a long sight distance and little traffic (the kind of road we have a lot of), 75 is just fine. Many narrow farm to market roads have speed limits of 60, which is higher than the proposed limit but still unreasonably slow in many places.
A straight, flat rural two-lane highway with miles of visibility and almost no traffic or intersecting roads is very different than a curvy, hilly rural two-lane highway with restricted visibility and heavy traffic and lots of intersections. No single speed limit is suitable for both.
I think a better approach is for all of the states to set reasonable speed limits. This is based on conditions and not uniform numbers. There's no reason for a speed limit of 75 in Texas to reduce to 65 in Oklahoma on the same road with the same conditions. If both states set reasonable limits, there may still be changes at state lines when the road is designed differently, but not because of imaginary lines. Speed limits would still generally vary by region, but that's entirely appropriate because of topography, visibility, development, and traffic density.
The idea might work on a regional scale, especially in small states where state lines are crossed frequently and conditions are substantially similar in different states (such as New England) or where a highway cuts corners of different states and there's no reason to have different speed limits in each one. If we could, somehow, get all of the states to agree to a national agreement, it should be even easier to get them to agree to set more reasonable limits based on the different conditions that exist. That seems to be slowly happening on its own, with speed limits rising here and there.
One thing I'd like to see is separation of establishing and enforcing speed limits. A city or county should not have unlimited discretion to set speed limits and collect fines for violations. State highway speed limits should be set by the state, by a department that does not receive traffic fine money. Local road speed limits should be set in a way that's relatively uniform, with good reason needed for any that are abnormally low.
also work zone that don't have very low limits.
Like long work zones with no one working
45 work zones in areas where the works are walled off
24/7 low limits on high speed roads
work zone limits for very minor work
work zones where a 70-65 drops to 45.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.
If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.
I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong–maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).
I feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".
My solution? A federal bureau charged with management and regulation of all Interstate Highways. And federal agents performing highway patrol. No local or state police beholden to local interests. These are federal roads, paid for by federal taxpayers for the national-interest.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.
Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.
Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.
Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2016, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.
If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.
I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong–maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).
I feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".
My solution? A federal bureau charged with management and regulation of all Interstate Highways. And federal agents performing highway patrol. No local or state police beholden to local interests. These are federal roads, paid for by federal taxpayers for the national-interest.
I was going to reply to this, but I suspect it would veer too far into the sorts of political discussion the moderators ask us to avoid. Let's just say I do not share your enthusiasm for aggregating more and more power in the federal government and leave it at that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.
Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.
Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.
Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?
Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 19, 2016, 07:34:49 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2016, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.
If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.
I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong—maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).
I feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".
My solution? A federal bureau charged with management and regulation of all Interstate Highways. And federal agents performing highway patrol. No local or state police beholden to local interests. These are federal roads, paid for by federal taxpayers for the national-interest.
I was going to reply to this, but I suspect it would veer too far into the sorts of political discussion the moderators ask us to avoid. Let's just say I do not share your enthusiasm for aggregating more and more power in the federal government and leave it at that.
I'm not a fan of it either. However, the National Park Police have primary jurisdiction on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, right?
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.
Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.
Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.
Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?
Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."
So they'll just post a lower limit a half-mile prior to the state line. Seems way more sensible than creating an entire "Interstate Speed Limit Compact".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.
Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.
Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.
Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?
Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."
So they'll just post a lower limit a half-mile prior to the state line. Seems way more sensible than creating an entire "Interstate Speed Limit Compact".
Yeah, I never advocated for that level of federal intrusion. As a traveler, I just want to be aware of speed limit drops so I don't have to deal with a state trooper with a love of writing tickets.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:49:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line. Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.
That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.
Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.
Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.
Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?
Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."
So they'll just post a lower limit a half-mile prior to the state line. Seems way more sensible than creating an entire "Interstate Speed Limit Compact".
Yeah, I never advocated for that level of federal intrusion. As a traveler, I just want to be aware of speed limit drops so I don't have to deal with a state trooper with a love of writing tickets.
A lot of states already do. IIRC, Ohio posted signs on I-90 at the PA border warning of the drop, for example. Drops at state lines are rarely more than 5 mph, anyway, unless you're entering an urban area at the same time.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2016, 11:03:34 PMI feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".
I'm also going to steer clear of the inflammatory political part of this, only to mention that, practically speaking, a road functions a lot more discretely than airspace (but you knew that). The implications for differing regulations on a road between states, coordinated within reason, can differ with far less serious impact than that of 80-ton missiles in a (literally) nebulous zone traveling the width of some states in five minutes.
Uniform standards without which interoperability is rendered impractical or impossible are managed by the federal government. The federal government has done this with regard to speed limit by setting guidelines. Choosing where within those guidelines to set limits is not critical to interoperability.
Quote from: cl94 on January 19, 2016, 11:33:58 AM
A lot of states already do. IIRC, Ohio posted signs on I-90 at the PA border warning of the drop, for example. Drops at state lines are rarely more than 5 mph, anyway, unless you're entering an urban area at the same time.
Tell that to Oregon. Driving from Idaho into Oregon on I-84 is a 15 MPH drop (from 80 to 65). This will soon be reduced to 10 (80 to 70) but still a big difference.
I don't think we need an interstate compact. Most states are pretty good about signing speed limits and I'd rather not go looking for problems to solve. Isn't there a rule already about posting a speed limit drop ahead sign and then a speed limit sign where it actually drops?
And I'm definitely against blanket speed limits applied without considering local circumstances. Engineering of the road, what animals enter the roadway, visibility, kinds of driver and vehicle, condition of the road, tendency toward avalanches, rockfalls, and landslides, increase in accidents at a particular location, etc.
Quote from: kkt on January 19, 2016, 03:36:50 PM
...Isn't there a rule already about posting a speed limit drop ahead sign and then a speed limit sign where it actually drops?
Amazingly, the answer is: Not Always.
Quote
Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), Standard: 09
A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5 or W3-5a) sign (see Section 2C.38) should be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead.
And remember: should does not equal shall. Thus, even a significant drop in limit doesn't absolutely require a reduced speed ahead sign. That said, the cases where a speed limit drop of 10 or more is not signed in advance is fairly rare. And of the instances I'm aware of, some are near, but none are at, a state line. Although, they do tend to be near where the jurisdiction changes, say from state to bi-state authority. It's equally rare to see a cop near the any of these limit reductions, and the tolerances tend to be pretty high.
Quote from: brycecordry on January 18, 2016, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 02:13:38 PM
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards. There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.
These standards are meant to be just that. Substandard routes would in turn warrant a substandard speed limit, and above-standard routes would get an above-standard speed limit. The only gain it would give is eliminating speed changes for merely "crossing an imaginary line", reserving those instead for changes in the actual road geometry.
So who decides whether differences in road conditions warrant above- or below-standard speed limits? If each state gets to decide on its own, the "standard" will be easily blown off and end up having little meaning. If someone else decides, who, and how much cost and aggravation gets added to the speed limit setting process?
Far more practical is the proposal downthread to require only that border speed limit reductions take effect a half-mile inside the border, with notice of the reduction posted at the border.
I'm also bothered by what seems to me overconcern about "eliminating speed changes for merely 'crossing an imaginary line'". I have most likely crossed many more borders than you, from extensive travel throughout North America. I've also encountered some fairly major speed limit changes at borders, such as from 75 to 55 on a two-lane US highway crossing from Texas into New Mexico, and at international borders between mph and km/h (not always equal on both sides of the border, after you do the conversion). None of this bothered me in the least. I just counted that as states or other jurisdictions doing things differently, with the differences usually not objectively unreasonable (though my preference is almost always for higher limits).
There are a lot of road-related things states, etc. do differently, even with MUTCD and similar requirements encouraging uniformity (such as on sign and signal design) where it is most critical. Those differences are frequently discussed on this forum, and are part of what makes this hobby interesting.
Quote from: oscar on January 19, 2016, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: brycecordry on January 18, 2016, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 02:13:38 PM
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards. There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.
These standards are meant to be just that. Substandard routes would in turn warrant a substandard speed limit, and above-standard routes would get an above-standard speed limit. The only gain it would give is eliminating speed changes for merely "crossing an imaginary line", reserving those instead for changes in the actual road geometry.
So who decides whether differences in road conditions warrant above- or below-standard speed limits? If each state gets to decide on its own, the "standard" will be easily blown off and end up having little meaning. If someone else decides, who, and how much cost and aggravation gets added to the speed limit setting process?
Far more practical is the proposal downthread to require only that border speed limit reductions take effect a half-mile inside the border, with notice of the reduction posted at the border.
I'm also bothered by what seems to me overconcern about "eliminating speed changes for merely 'crossing an imaginary line'". I have most likely crossed many more borders than you, from extensive travel throughout North America. I've also encountered some fairly major speed limit changes at borders, such as from 75 to 55 on a two-lane US highway crossing from Texas into New Mexico, and at international borders between mph and km/h (not always equal on both sides of the border, after you do the conversion). None of this bothered me in the least. I just counted that as states or other jurisdictions doing things differently, with the differences usually not objectively unreasonable (though my preference is almost always for higher limits).
There are a lot of road-related things states, etc. do differently, even with MUTCD and similar requirements encouraging uniformity (such as on sign and signal design) where it is most critical. Those differences are frequently discussed on this forum, and are part of what makes this hobby interesting.
A lot of the issues people have could be rectified by making the W3-5 mandatory. I'd also make "begin" signage mandatory (or at least optional) at a speed limit change, as is the case in Ontario (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9101582,-78.9291768,3a,19.7y,255.87h,85.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr4ZphGZ1wWyfBHgJbhBlSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and is becoming common in New York on expressways (R3-9cP mounded over speed limit sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.825938,-73.7688351,3a,75y,353.39h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJDom6lKVEtFq0itKB_mmQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) for limit increases. This way, there would be at least two special signs indicating a decrease and one for an increase.
I love the W3-5 signs. I never saw my first one until my 2011 trip to El Paso to visit my son at Fort Bliss. I first saw them on I-30 (?) in Texas and I was like wow, that's nice to have. After that they started sprouting up all over the place. Now here in NC I can't remember the last speed limit change on a highway that isn't preceded by them, or at the very least the old white text "Reduced Speed Ahead" sign.
All of that said, I never had a problem before then, especially at state lines. That big colorful "Welcome to <insert state name here>, Joe Dirtbag, Governor" is a big , honking advertisement for the concept of new state, new rules. I intuitively scan for a speed limit sign immediately upon seeing that welcome sign. My non-roadgeek wife is the same way. I guess I just can't understand how people can plow past the state line and not expect at least the possibility that the speed limit might be different (faster or slower) than what it was for the last few hundred miles.
Making states move the speed limit change to a location inside the state (1/2 mile, mile, 5 miles, whatever) is literally just kicking that can down the road to an even more imaginary line than what the state line denotes. In fact, it might not even be possible to do that without legislation to raise the maximum allowed speed limit in the state, in some cases.
Maybe the states should work together so that "State A" puts up W3-5's to denote the lowered speed limit at the state line ahead in "State B" instead of moving the imaginary line further down the road. I see that is being currently done in a few places.
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 20, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
Maybe the states should work together so that "State A" puts up W3-5's to denote the lowered speed limit at the state line ahead in "State B" instead of moving the imaginary line further down the road. I see that is being currently done in a few places.
This I can get behind. The concept of the speed compact could instead be that a state agrees to allow/require an adjacent state to post an appropriate W3-5 sign where speed limits drop 10mph or more at the state line.
E.g.: If the hypothetical speed limit on I-15 southbound is 75 in Nevada and 65 in California, then NDOT approves for Caltrans to post the appropriate W3-5 warning signs in Nevada just before crossing the state line into California. That sign would be maintained by Caltrans (or NDOT compensated by Caltrans for said sign), and updated/removed as necessary if the speed limit in California ever changes.
Regarding interstates, I don't think a uniform system could be implemented because there are so many different variables and unique situations that there would be so many exceptions to the rules made. However, I do think that all states should consider increasing their speed limits, this would be my plan in regards to my state, Kentucky for limited access freeways:
Plan A (the four 5's)
- 55mph: Urban areas and some mountain areas (Louisville urban I-64, 65, 71, 264; Covington/Cincinnati urban I-71/75, 275, 471)
- 65mph: Suburban areas (Louisville Suburban 65, 64, 71, 265; Covington/Cincinnati suburban I-71/75.)
- 75mph: Exurbs; Rural, but highly traveled interstates; rural but low traveled interstates that are not safe at the next tier (Exurbs: I-24 near Paducah; Louisville I-71, 64, 65; Lexington I-75 and I-64; High Traveled Rural Interstates: I-65, I-71, and I-64 between Louisville and Lexington.
- 85mph: Rural, but low traveled interstates and other limited access highways (I-24, I-69, all of the parkways bar the Mountain and Rodgers parkways.
Plan B (The three 0's):
- 60mph: Urban and mountain areas
- 70mph: Suburban Areas
- 80mph: Exurbs and rural