From WTOP Radio, Washington, D.C.: Pay a toll, drive faster (http://wtop.com/654/3032250/Would-you-pay-more-to-drive-faster)
QuoteArea drivers are already paying tolls to drive faster, but in other states the trend could be headed to another level.
QuoteDrivers already have the toll option along roads, including the InterCounty Connector in Maryland. On the all-electronic ICC, drivers can pay a toll and drive at about 55 mph any time of the day.
QuoteLikewise in Virginia, the soon-to-open Beltway Express Lanes offer the promise of a speedy rush hour trip of 55 mph, if drivers pay a toll.
QuoteIn Texas -- where of course, everything is bigger -- a new toll road could have drivers flying down the highway.
The speed limit on rural Oklahoma turnpikes is 75, while free interstates are 70.
for the longest time, the CA-73 toll road was known to be very lightly patrolled. speed of traffic was in the low 90s.
alas, now it is patrolled. speed of traffic is higher than the corresponding segments of 5 and 405 only when 5 and 405 are busy.
Last I was there, in Puerto Rico only toll roads had 65mph speed limits (yes, miles per hour, even through PR is otherwise metric). No non-toll roads had speed limits higher than 55mph.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2012, 12:01:30 PM
for the longest time, the CA-73 toll road was known to be very lightly patrolled. speed of traffic was in the low 90s.
alas, now it is patrolled. speed of traffic is higher than the corresponding segments of 5 and 405 only when 5 and 405 are busy.
Ca. 73 is a
gorgeous highway!
At least the TCA (tolled) segment ought to have a posted limit of 75 or maybe 80. It would also attract more (paying) customers.
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2012, 11:58:09 AM
The speed limit on rural Oklahoma turnpikes is 75, while free interstates are 70.
Are those limits too low? I have never visited Oklahoma, so I have no personal knowledge.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
Are those limits too low? I have never visited Oklahoma, so I have no personal knowledge.
75 seems about right. I'm happy doing about 79 on those roads.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2012, 11:58:09 AM
The speed limit on rural Oklahoma turnpikes is 75, while free interstates are 70.
Are those limits too low? I have never visited Oklahoma, so I have no personal knowledge.
75 is about right on the Will Rogers and Turner Turnpikes because of their early '50s design standards and large volumes of traffic. The other turnpikes would be safe at higher speeds. The interstates are signed too low, as they are mostly built to better design standards than the turnpikes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
At least the TCA (tolled) segment ought to have a posted limit of 75 or maybe 80. It would also attract more (paying) customers.
while we're at it, make those northernmost 4 miles or whatnot be the same speed limit as well.
80 seems like a good speed limit for that road.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2012, 02:14:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
At least the TCA (tolled) segment ought to have a posted limit of 75 or maybe 80. It would also attract more (paying) customers.
while we're at it, make those northernmost 4 miles or whatnot be the same speed limit as well.
80 seems like a good speed limit for that road.
It's been a few years since I drove it, but 80 is certainly fine for the tolled part. At the north ("free") end, it seemed like the road was busier (and there were more on- and off-ramps close together), hence 80
might (IMO) be a little bit high.
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2012, 02:13:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2012, 11:58:09 AM
The speed limit on rural Oklahoma turnpikes is 75, while free interstates are 70.
Are those limits too low? I have never visited Oklahoma, so I have no personal knowledge.
75 is about right on the Will Rogers and Turner Turnpikes because of their early '50s design standards and large volumes of traffic. The other turnpikes would be safe at higher speeds.
The Indian Nation is worse than the Will Rogers and Turner. Its design standards are abysmal; I'd estimate the median at 4 feet, and most of the bridges are divided with only a raised curb.
In NJ, police enforcement on the toll roads is EVEN MORE generous than on the free roads. On free roads, they'll start pulling you at 75 in a 55 and 80 in a 65. On the toll roads, you can possibly get away with even 85 in a 55 or 65 - they look for aggressive driving behavior more than pure speed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2012, 05:19:05 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2012, 02:13:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2012, 11:58:09 AM
The speed limit on rural Oklahoma turnpikes is 75, while free interstates are 70.
Are those limits too low? I have never visited Oklahoma, so I have no personal knowledge.
75 is about right on the Will Rogers and Turner Turnpikes because of their early '50s design standards and large volumes of traffic. The other turnpikes would be safe at higher speeds.
The Indian Nation is worse than the Will Rogers and Turner. Its design standards are abysmal; I'd estimate the median at 4 feet, and most of the bridges are divided with only a raised curb.
Part of the Muskogee has the raised grassy median:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4001%2F4372351226_dbd807a0ce_z.jpg&hash=affd1169a571bc72a603c02816ef48efcf9fb79a)
The Muskogee, Indian Nation, Cimarron, and Muskogee Turnpikes are designed to a slightly higher standard than the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes. The Turner and Will Rogers are hillier and straighter than the later pikes. Look at the Turner on an aerial view: the road is perfectly straight for miles and miles with few curves. The first generation turnpikes all have the narrow median, but some of the grassy medians have been replaced by Jersey barriers. From what I've been told, parts of the Bailey turnpike still has the grassy median. The Cherokee, Creek, and Kilpatrick are designed to modern standards.
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
I base it on the idea that toll roads have lower vehicle counts, and therefore are safer to drive at higher speeds.
I know this about 73 from experience.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
However, many toll roads (especially the older ones in the East) have widely-spaced interchanges, and that's one reason why they ought to have higher posted speed limits.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
In Miami, the express toll lanes along I95 are essentially unpoliced so speeds of 90+ are not uncommon.
And then there is the new Texas Toll Road opening up in November with a speed limit of 85 MPH...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Just because everybody's doing it (having politicians interfere with speed limits) doesn't make it right. If everybody started jumping off a cliff, would you?
Quote from: deanej on September 13, 2012, 02:32:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Just because everybody's doing it (having politicians interfere with speed limits) doesn't make it right. If everybody started jumping off a cliff, would you?
Huh? Do you just type random, overused cliches?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 13, 2012, 02:32:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Just because everybody's doing it (having politicians interfere with speed limits) doesn't make it right. If everybody started jumping off a cliff, would you?
Huh? Do you just type random, overused cliches?
That's the first one I've seen. So the answer is "no."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
A red herring in this debate. 85 mph should not be a "treat" dangled in exchange for favors. Either your maximum is 80 or it's 85, and it should be applied regardless of who owns the road.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 13, 2012, 02:32:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Just because everybody's doing it (having politicians interfere with speed limits) doesn't make it right. If everybody started jumping off a cliff, would you?
Huh? Do you just type random, overused cliches?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It must be nice to speed along those toll lanes while the rest is at a standstill during rush hour! :-D
It should be pointed out that in Texas the highest speed limit is not by law limited to toll roads; it's limited to roads that are designed for those high speeds. That could be interpreted as being limited to new roads, which in today's environment will probably be toll roads, but I suspect that before too long either statutory amendments or TxDOT's interpretation will apply the 85 mph limit to ultra-rural sections of I-10 and I-20 where the speed limit is now 80. TxDOT did post a speed limit of 80 on sections of SH 130 and 45 that were open before the law was passed. Under other statutes, the highest limit would be 75. This shows that they are willing to post the higher limits on roads that pre-date the 2011 law.
It's true that toll roads tend to have lighter traffic, but some freeways have very light traffic and widely-spaced ramps due to their location.
I think having a higher speed limit on a toll road is a good idea, like a perk for paying to drive the road (as long as its standards can accommodate it, like the 85 mph in TX). It is the toll roads with 55 mph speed limits that should be 65 or 70 that makes me question, "what am I paying for?"
Quote from: Alex on September 15, 2012, 10:54:36 AM
I think having a higher speed limit on a toll road is a good idea, like a perk for paying to drive the road (as long as its standards can accommodate it, like the 85 mph in TX). It is the toll roads with 55 mph speed limits that should be 65 or 70 that makes me question, "what am I paying for?"
Speaking of the 85-mph highway in Texas.... The toll road agency had it as part of its contract with the state of Texas that it would pay the state $67 million if the road got an 80-mph limit, whereas it would pay the state $100 million if the road got an 85-mph limit. What do you think about that?
Money talks.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2012, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: Alex on September 15, 2012, 10:54:36 AM
I think having a higher speed limit on a toll road is a good idea, like a perk for paying to drive the road (as long as its standards can accommodate it, like the 85 mph in TX). It is the toll roads with 55 mph speed limits that should be 65 or 70 that makes me question, "what am I paying for?"
Speaking of the 85-mph highway in Texas.... The toll road agency had it as part of its contract with the state of Texas that it would pay the state $67 million if the road got an 80-mph limit, whereas it would pay the state $100 million if the road got an 85-mph limit. What do you think about that?
A speed limit of 85 is going to be perfectly acceptable when that road (130) is complete. Traffic is going to be very sparse.
That's not fishy at all, but what is fishy is the signing of the frontage roads (US 183) as 55mph between Mustang Ridge and Lockhart.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2012, 05:19:05 PMThe Indian Nation is worse than the Will Rogers and Turner. Its design standards are abysmal; I'd estimate the median at 4 feet, and most of the bridges are divided with only a raised curb.
It's like they said "Hey! Let's copy the original Pennsylvania Turnpike design!"
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2012, 01:01:51 PMSpeaking of the 85-mph highway in Texas.... The toll road agency had it as part of its contract with the state of Texas that it would pay the state $67 million if the road got an 80-mph limit, whereas it would pay the state $100 million if the road got an 85-mph limit. What do you think about that?
In the dictionary, this is used to illustrate the term
perverse incentive.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 21, 2012, 10:34:58 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2012, 01:01:51 PMSpeaking of the 85-mph highway in Texas.... The toll road agency had it as part of its contract with the state of Texas that it would pay the state $67 million if the road got an 80-mph limit, whereas it would pay the state $100 million if the road got an 85-mph limit. What do you think about that?
In the dictionary, this is used to illustrate the term perverse incentive.
"Perverse"?! Only if one thinks the highway wasn't designed for safe travel at an 85mph limit. If it was, the incentive only encourages the state to do what it should be doing anyway.
Quote from: oscar on September 21, 2012, 11:27:35 AM"Perverse"?! Only if one thinks the highway wasn't designed for safe travel at an 85mph limit. If it was, the incentive only encourages the state to do what it should be doing anyway.
Yup: perverse. The title-sheet design speed for all of the segments of SH 130 for which I have obtained construction plans is 70 MPH. Now, I will grant you that there is probably enough slack in the design to support safe speed limits of 85 MPH or even higher. But the perversity of the incentive arises from the fact that the added money encourages TxDOT to find that 85 MPH speed limits are safe, regardless of whether they are or not, and indeed, regardless of whether TxDOT responds to that encouragement by allowing its speed limit determination to be influenced in any way by the added cash.
This perverse incentive can be removed in at least two ways: (1) TxDOT's payouts from its CDA partner not being related to the speed limit in any way, or (2) TxDOT and the CDA partner agreeing that the speed limit will be the title-sheet design speed, which obliges the latter actually to use an 85 MPH design speed if it wants an 85 MPH speed limit.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems in Minnesota the DOT can go above the otherwise normal limits if warranted. See Subdivision 4 of https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14)
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 21, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems in Minnesota the DOT can go above the otherwise normal limits if warranted. See Subdivision 4 of https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14)
Even if the law nominally gives a DOT broad discretion to set speed limits, that doesn't cut the politicos out of the action entirely. For example, AFAIK, Hawaii for a long time had no statutory maximum speed limit, and even now the only statutory limit is one defining reckless driving as 80mph or higher. Still, Hawaii DOT moved very gingerly (after consulation with politicians, in the aftermath of a spectacularly failed experiment in photo radar speed enforcement) to raise some freeway speed limits from 55mph to 60mph, and hasn't yet dared to return any of them to the pre-NMSL maximum of 65mph.
It may look perverse but in my experience engineers are very ethical people...not to mention it's their ass if they sign off on a higher speed limit
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2012, 09:48:40 PM
Just because a road is tolled does not mean the speed limit should be higher. Speed limits should be based only on what is safe, and on engineering principles. Political meddling with them is stupid.
I agree.
When it comes to speed and toll roads, I am personally much more interested in the
variability of the actual observed speeds,
not the
maximum legal speed limit.
Toll roads need to "sell" that they can get a driver from point A to point B
reliably in a
predictable amount of time, which (in some cases) means that 50 MPH or 55 MPH is perfectly acceptable.
Quote from: bjrush on September 22, 2012, 12:25:18 AMIt may look perverse but in my experience engineers are very ethical people...not to mention it's their ass if they sign off on a higher speed limit
In my experience too, engineers strive to adhere to high ethical standards. But they have to eat just like the rest of us. Also, fixing a speed limit is not something that can be done easily to hard-and-fast objective criteria, like determining the acceptable load for a bridge: no clear physical relationships are involved and the research findings are notoriously cloudy. This means that setting a speed limit involves substantial exercise of discretion ("engineering judgment") and that in turn implies that an engineer is less likely to be held liable for bad engineering practice if he sets a speed limit too high than if a bridge collapses.
In short, for an engineer assigned the problem of deciding whether a given toll road is safe for an 85 MPH limit, the cash incentive means that the downside risks are greater for a negative determination than for a positive one. In practice, however, responsibility for speed limit determinations is not assigned in a vacuum, and I suspect the decision as to the safety or otherwise of an 85 MPH limit would be delegated to an engineer whose bosses' past experience suggests will be more likely to support higher speed limits anyway.
Quote from: bjrush on September 22, 2012, 12:25:18 AM
It may look perverse but in my experience engineers are very ethical people...not to mention it's their ass if they sign off on a higher speed limit
Raising speed limits is unethical? I would think the opposite would be true. For a lower limit you inconvenienced thousands of drivers. If a limit is too high (something that is very rare indeed) and someone gets into an accident, it's their own fault for driving faster than conditions warranted just because of some number on a sign. If you can't realize you're driving too fast for conditions without a sign telling you, you shouldn't be driving.
I meant raising speed limits above a safe and acceptable limit. Doing such a thing would be unethical and I bet most engineers agree. If the increases are within safety specs, what I was saying doesn't apply.
Quote from: bjrush on September 23, 2012, 04:53:55 PM
I meant raising speed limits above a safe and acceptable limit. Doing such a thing would be unethical and I bet most engineers agree.
I doubt German engineers would.
Quote from: bjrush on September 22, 2012, 12:25:18 AM
It may look perverse but in my experience engineers are very ethical people...not to mention it's their ass if they sign off on a higher speed limit
This is very true. Engineers are scared of lawsuits like crazy these days. Most P.E. carry a $1 million insurance policy against such lawsuits. Even if you did everything right, you may still get caught up in paying a lot of legal fees if a lawsuit ever came up.
Design speed is a factor that goes into quite a bit of highway design. As long as the highway was built to that design speed, then it shouldn't be an issue.
Then again, it may not be that the engineer signed off on a higher speed limit but more that the politicians went above and beyond the original design intent.
Quote from: deanej on September 22, 2012, 12:27:29 PM
Raising speed limits is unethical? I would think the opposite would be true. For a lower limit you inconvenienced thousands of drivers. If a limit is too high (something that is very rare indeed) and someone gets into an accident, it's their own fault for driving faster than conditions warranted just because of some number on a sign. If you can't realize you're driving too fast for conditions without a sign telling you, you shouldn't be driving.
I don't think the 'driving faster than conditions warranted' holds up in court.
The best way to handle the motorist inconvenience vs. safety is to probably post a somewhat reasonable speed limit, but overdue the advisory signage with lots of advisory speed plaques.
Nonetheless, engineering is often a no-win occupation.
Quote from: bjrush on September 23, 2012, 04:53:55 PM
I meant raising speed limits above a safe and acceptable limit. Doing such a thing would be unethical and I bet most engineers agree. If the increases are within safety specs, what I was saying doesn't apply.
Indeed, but reality isn't so simple. While usually the intent when designing a road is that it will be posted 5 or 10 MPH below its design speed, many aspects of the design speed in the first place make some conservative assumptions about things such as drivers' reaction time - 2.2 seconds, if I recall correctly from my highway design class. Which is a lot. While you are not going to find someone who takes longer than that to react (which is the idea), most people will take less, especially if they're alert. For reasons such as this, in reality, "safe speed" depends on more than just the geometry of the road, the weather conditions, and the amount of traffic - it also depends on what vehicle is being driven, by whom, and in what mental state.
Most drivers are well aware of what their capabilities are and do not need a sign with a number on it to tell them how fast they should drive. Speed limits as we know them are for regulatory purposes only and exist only for the sake of having something which can be enforced. And since they are regulatory, they inevitably (unfortunately) end up subject to political rather than practical judgment. Yesterday as I was leaving my cousin's house, I was driving on a road where the speed limit was 30 and I was doing 30 since it was a narrow twisty road and much more wouldn't be practical. But then I turned off onto a wider, straighter, more major road, and while I started doing 40, the speed limit was still 30. Simply because 30 is the maximum that town allows for local streets, regardless of practical consideration.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 23, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 22, 2012, 12:27:29 PM
If a limit is too high (something that is very rare indeed) and someone gets into an accident, it's their own fault for driving faster than conditions warranted just because of some number on a sign. If you can't realize you're driving too fast for conditions without a sign telling you, you shouldn't be driving.
I don't think the 'driving faster than conditions warranted' holds up in court.
If you cause an accident you are legally "at fault" regardless of how fast you were going, so the speed limit doesn't matter there. As for a higher limit requiring a higher speed to get ticketed, well yeah, that's the idea. Get the cops to leave ordinary drivers alone and only let them pull the real scofflaws over.
Quote from: oscar on September 22, 2012, 12:22:53 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 21, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2012, 09:33:07 AM
Um, there isn't a speed limit in this country that doesn't have some sort of political influence. Find me 1 state that doesn't have a law regarding a maximum speed limit.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems in Minnesota the DOT can go above the otherwise normal limits if warranted. See Subdivision 4 of https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14)
Even if the law nominally gives a DOT broad discretion to set speed limits, that doesn't cut the politicos out of the action entirely. For example, AFAIK, Hawaii for a long time had no statutory maximum speed limit, and even now the only statutory limit is one defining reckless driving as 80mph or higher. Still, Hawaii DOT moved very gingerly (after consulation with politicians, in the aftermath of a spectacularly failed experiment in photo radar speed enforcement) to raise some freeway speed limits from 55mph to 60mph, and hasn't yet dared to return any of them to the pre-NMSL maximum of 65mph.
NJ doesn't have one either, although it's often mis-interperted.
Per NJ law, the speed limit, unless otherwise signed, is 25 in any business and residential districts, 35 mph in suburban business and residental district (yes, the 25 mph says "any", so the 35 mph subsection doesn't make any sense), and 50 mph in all other locations.
In many online charts, 50 mph is listed to be the maximum limit on non-interstate highways, which is false also.
During the NMSL, 55 was never listed as a maximum speed limit anywhere on the NJ law books. Which made the fight to change the law to 65 mph absurd, because there was no law stating what the max speed limit was. Even now, the law states "Fifty miles per hour in all other locations, except as otherwise provided in the "Sixty-Five MPH Speed Limit Implementation Act...". But the law still never states the maximum speed limit is 65 mph!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2012, 09:10:29 AM
Per NJ law, the speed limit, unless otherwise signed, is 25 in any business and residential districts, 35 mph in suburban business and residental district (yes, the 25 mph says "any", so the 35 mph subsection doesn't make any sense), and 50 mph in all other locations.
The 25-35-50 was my initial impression of the law, and after years of seeing nothing to corroborate it, I gave up on the 35 part. Finally, someone else saw what I saw!
In South Carolina, the speed limit is 70 mph for all roads - toll and free. Of course, Interstate 185 in Greenville County is the only toll road that I know of in the state (to date).
Quote from: mjb2002 on September 26, 2012, 07:10:18 PM
In South Carolina, the speed limit is 70 mph for all roads - toll and free.
All roads? Damn.
Quote from: mjb2002 on September 26, 2012, 07:10:18 PM
Of course, Interstate 185 in Greenville County is the only toll road that I know of in the state (to date).
US 278 on Hilton Head Island.
Quote from: NE2 on September 26, 2012, 07:23:45 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on September 26, 2012, 07:10:18 PM
In South Carolina, the speed limit is 70 mph for all roads - toll and free.
All roads? Damn.
That'll make my upcoming trip that much shorter!
I really think that speed limits should reflect safety and efficiency, and not toll (or speeding ticket) revenue, so I don't think we should have higher limits for pay roads. Toll roads may be better suited for higher speeds if they have better design and lighter traffic, but high-class free roads with equivalent design and light traffic should qualify for the same speed limits.
On the other hand, sometimes they want you to pay a toll to drive slower. On the Chisholm Trail Parkway project in Fort Worth, the proposed speed limit on the north end, between I-30 and I-20, is 50 mph. The artificially low speed limit is intended to reduce noise impact in the surrounding residential area. There's also discussion of charging a higher rate, I've heard 4 cents per mile extra, to pay for the extra aesthetics. I haven't seen that in any of the documents, but it's been said at public meetings. This portion of road is surrounded on all 4 sides by freeways, so it's the least competitive section, and they want to charge people an extra-high toll to drive slower than all of the surrounding freeways.
This ridiculous speed limit not only disincentivizes toll-paying, but is unsafe. Rule followers, and people with warrants, will go 50, while people wanting to drive a reasonable speed (and get some value for their toll money) will probably be going 70-75.
Quote from: wxfree on October 17, 2012, 10:46:42 PM
On the other hand, sometimes they want you to pay a toll to drive slower. On the Chisholm Trail Parkway project in Fort Worth, the proposed speed limit on the north end, between I-30 and I-20, is 50 mph. The artificially low speed limit is intended to reduce noise impact in the surrounding residential area. There's also discussion of charging a higher rate, I've heard 4 cents per mile extra, to pay for the extra aesthetics. I haven't seen that in any of the documents, but it's been said at public meetings. This portion of road is surrounded on all 4 sides by freeways, so it's the least competitive section, and they want to charge people an extra-high toll to drive slower than all of the surrounding freeways.
This ridiculous speed limit not only disincentivizes toll-paying, but is unsafe. Rule followers, and people with warrants, will go 50, while people wanting to drive a reasonable speed (and get some value for their toll money) will probably be going 70-75.
It's the same thinking behind managed toll lanes. I can pay a toll and be guaranteed to go 50-55 mph during peak periods and not have to deal with congestion. That's the theory anyways, I'm not familiar enough with Ft Worth traffic patterns to know if that will work in practice for this road.