An 85 mph bill for freeways was introduced in the State Senate yesterday (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/feb/25/bill-would-speed-limit-85-mph-nevada/) and appears to have a fair amount of support. This would theoretically cut the 410-mile trip across Nevada on I-80 to around 5 hours and would also get Utah's money into Las Vegas a little quicker. Anyone who's driven I-80 knows that if ever 85 mph were appropriate, that's the right road to pick.
Here's the present NV Speed Limit map (http://www.usroadconditions.com/nvmileposts.html)
To me 85 is the optimal driving speed- 87 or so is where, in most cars, I feel the difference between "I'm driving fast" and "I'm needlessly wasting fuel/feel like my engine is about to blow up"
I'd rather see Nevada up their speed limits on the major US routes to 75- 93 is a slow haul at 70
most of the two-laners could handle it as well. about 90% of the "speed limit 70" segments on that map could be raised to 85, if not 100. good sight lines, hardly any traffic.
Nevada has a habit of dropping the speed limit to 60 or 55 on curvy/mountainous sections of those two-laners, so there is precedent for gradations as a result of terrain. I wouldn't object to the occasional 70/75/80 section in slightly hilly/curved sections, but when there is 20 miles of forward visibility, and not a single car to be seen, 85 and higher makes lots of sense.
Quote from: corco on February 26, 2013, 01:07:38 PM
To me 85 is the optimal driving speed- 87 or so is where, in most cars, I feel the difference between "I'm driving fast" and "I'm needlessly wasting fuel/feel like my engine is about to blow up"
for me it's about 83 in my '97 Taurus. if the speed limit were raised to 85 in Nevada, I don't think I'd change my driving speed too much - bring it up from 77 to 83 on the two-laners, and keep it at 83 on the freeways.
in Germany on the autobahn, I decided on 155 km/h, which is 96... in a much newer, less rattly, car.
Yeah, in my 02 Liberty I'd probably still hold it to 83 or so, but it'd nice to be able to accelerate quasi legally up to 90 to quickly pass a car going 80. Especially at those speeds, people don't need to be lurking in blind spots, passing .1 MPH faster than the car next to them.
The Review-Journal article (http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-could-lead-to-highway-speeds-up-to-85-mph-193098631.html) contains a bit more information. The politician who introduced the bill talks about "the lonely drive from Las Vegas to Carson City" (mostly on two-lane US 95) but the NDOT spokesman seems lukewarm on that part of it.
QuoteTransportation Department spokesman Scott Magruder said his agency takes a neutral position. He added the agency determines speed limits on three factors, whether there is limited access to road, whether a road is a divided highway with two, four or more lanes and on the "85 percent rule."
That rule determines the average speed driven by 85 percent of the motorists. On Interstate 80 in Northern Nevada, the average speed is 79 mph where the limit is 75 mph.
Magruder questioned whether U.S. Highway 95, the main route between Las Vegas and Reno, could ever see higher limits. The road for hundreds of miles is two-lane without wide shoulders.
Quote from: corco on February 26, 2013, 01:18:46 PM
Yeah, in my 02 Liberty I'd probably still hold it to 83 or so, but it'd nice to be able to accelerate quasi legally up to 90 to quickly pass a car going 80. Especially at those speeds, people don't need to be lurking in blind spots, passing .1 MPH faster than the car next to them.
heh, when I am passing, I might accelerate to 90-95, with the legality of it far from my mind, compared to the safety of the maneuver. if I get pulled over, I'll state that I wanted to spend as little time as possible in an opposing-traffic lane.
that said, most of the traffic I really feel the need to pass can be safely passed going 83. I think that would remain the case even if the speed limit increased: a lot of people wouldn't change their driving patterns at all.
if there's someone on the road doing almost exactly my speed and generally being a bear to pass (i.e. leapfrogging several times), I'll pull over for a minute for biological reasons, or to take some scenic photos, and never see him again.
Quoteheh, when I am passing, I might accelerate to 90-95, with the legality of it far from my mind, compared to the safety of the maneuver. if I get pulled over, I'll state that I wanted to spend as little time as possible in an opposing-traffic lane.
I was referring to passing on interstates, where people are far more apt to pull really slow passing maneuvers
I hope it succeeds. Over here a proposal to raise our speed limit from 70 to 80 has been abandoned. I suspect one of the reasons is due to the tolerance on speeding fines would make it a de-facto 90 limit before tickets are issued.
Quote from: Truvelo on February 26, 2013, 01:36:12 PM
I hope it succeeds. Over here a proposal to raise our speed limit from 70 to 80 has been abandoned. I suspect one of the reasons is due to the tolerance on speeding fines would make it a de-facto 90 limit before tickets are issued.
what's the point of tolerance, other than to encourage confusion and scofflaw behavior?
I would be happier if the speed limits were raised, and enforced rigorously.
are there roads in the UK where a speed limit of 90 would be safe? I am so unfamiliar with its geography and population density that I cannot answer that question.
Quote from: corco on February 26, 2013, 01:26:01 PM
I was referring to passing on interstates, where people are far more apt to pull really slow passing maneuvers
I'm okay with them doing so at 80mph, as opposed to at 57mph.
no matter how high the speed limit, you're always gonna find some asshole who is gonna pass a slow-moving vehicle at 1mph faster.
Quote from: gonealookin on February 26, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
The Review-Journal article (http://www.lvrj.com/news/bill-could-lead-to-highway-speeds-up-to-85-mph-193098631.html) contains a bit more information. The politician who introduced the bill talks about "the lonely drive from Las Vegas to Carson City" (mostly on two-lane US 95) but the NDOT spokesman seems lukewarm on that part of it.
QuoteTransportation Department spokesman Scott Magruder said his agency takes a neutral position. He added the agency determines speed limits on three factors, whether there is limited access to road, whether a road is a divided highway with two, four or more lanes and on the "85 percent rule."
That rule determines the average speed driven by 85 percent of the motorists. On Interstate 80 in Northern Nevada, the average speed is 79 mph where the limit is 75 mph.
Magruder questioned whether U.S. Highway 95, the main route between Las Vegas and Reno, could ever see higher limits. The road for hundreds of miles is two-lane without wide shoulders.
I can see how NDOT and the NHP would very hesitant to set 80+ MPH limits on 2-lane rural highways. While I understand agentsteel's points about the straight roads and excellent sight lines, I believe the NDOT thinks there is a liability issue with setting speed limits that high. After all these are still 2-lane roads where, at 80-85 MPH, all it takes is a slight lapse in concentration to cause a driver to lose control and crash.
Quoteno matter how high the speed limit, you're always gonna find some asshole who is gonna pass a slow-moving vehicle at 1mph faster.
Even a fast moving vehicle- personally, if I'm going 85 in a 75 and somebody passes me at 86, it's like "come on man, just pass me"- if a deer or something runs out onto the road I want to have as much road as possible to maneuver if I'm maneuvering at 85 MPH, which is not an unreasonable thing to want on I-80 in Nevada where there's like two other cars within a mile.
Quote from: corco on February 26, 2013, 01:52:25 PM
Quoteno matter how high the speed limit, you're always gonna find some asshole who is gonna pass a slow-moving vehicle at 1mph faster.
Even a fast moving vehicle- personally, if I'm going 85 in a 75 and somebody passes me at 86, it's like "come on man, just pass me"- if a deer or something runs out onto the road I want to have as much road as possible to maneuver if I'm maneuvering at 85 MPH, which is not an unreasonable thing to want on I-80 in Nevada where there's like two other cars within a mile.
well, now you're talking about being passed, as opposed to doing the passing.
for any and every value of N you decide on as your speed, you will find the one clown who insists on passing you at N+1. this is independent of the speed limit, or of your choice of N.
This is great news. I'd probably either do the speed limit or 5 over if I were driving in an 85 MPH zone.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 26, 2013, 01:12:32 PM
Quote from: corco on February 26, 2013, 01:07:38 PM
To me 85 is the optimal driving speed- 87 or so is where, in most cars, I feel the difference between "I'm driving fast" and "I'm needlessly wasting fuel/feel like my engine is about to blow up"
for me it's about 83 in my '97 Taurus. if the speed limit were raised to 85 in Nevada, I don't think I'd change my driving speed too much - bring it up from 77 to 83 on the two-laners, and keep it at 83 on the freeways.
in Germany on the autobahn, I decided on 155 km/h, which is 96... in a much newer, less rattly, car.
My natural driving speed on an open highway is about 88 mph. But it can vary, depending on the vehicle. So I would be quite content with an 85 mph limit, especially in empty quarters of the nation. For speeds over 90 mph to feel right to me, I need not just a good road surface but also wide shoulders (both outer and inner).
I have a good friend who is a stickler when it comes to the speed limit. He's working in the oilfields north of Pecos (TX) for a couple of weeks right now, and is loving the higher speed limits–so he apparently doesn't mind driving fast, but just doesn't want it to be illegal. He sent me a Glympse invite yesterday, and I could see him doing 78 on the 75 zone near Mentone in his work truck, so I can tell he quite comfortable with the higher speed limit.
It depends on the car. My car needs the tires balanced, so anything over 90 is sketchy. A brand new BMW would be comfortable at 140 MPH.
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
My natural driving speed on an open highway is about 88 mph.
Hopefully you don't drive a DeLorean with a flux capacitor. Otherwise, we know your true identity, McFly. :-D
Most of Nevada's Highways are 2 lane, I think that these roads should be set for 65mph max.
Interstate 15 70mph max South of LV, 75mph max North of LV
Interstate 80 70mph max West Of Reno, 85mph max East of Sparks slowing to 75 near Wendover.
QuoteMost of Nevada's Highways are 2 lane, I think that these roads should be set for 65mph max.
You know they're 70 now, right. And I'll be damned if there are highways with greater visibility- I'll actually go 70 on US-93 even when it's snow-covered because you can seriously see a couple miles ahead
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 26, 2013, 11:19:20 PM
Interstate 80 70mph max West Of Reno...
Disagree. I-80 is 65 MPH in California so a 65 MPH limit in Nevada west of Reno makes a lot of sense by maintaining some continuity. East of Reno, 75-80 MPH. I'm not sure if 85 MPH limits are appropriate given the terrain and the unpredictable weather (especially in the winter).
Quote from: Stalin on February 26, 2013, 05:43:20 PMA brand new BMW would be comfortable at 140 MPH.
depends on one's driving skills. I took a Citroen C5 up to 147 on the autobahn, and anything over 125 felt like I was putting in a lot of effort. over 135-140 or so, I felt the car getting squirrely, but that 125-135 zone gave me discomfort solely because of my inexperience at those speeds. my traveling companion, who has driven about twice as many miles as I have, was completely comfortable cruising around 133.
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 26, 2013, 11:19:20 PM
Most of Nevada's Highways are 2 lane, I think that these roads should be set for 65mph max.
I've just recently driven 70mph stretches of US 95 in Nevada, between Las Vegas and Fallon. 70mph (at least) is perfectly fine there. NVDOT isn't shy about reducing the limit as needed on the curvier stretches.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 27, 2013, 01:33:40 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 26, 2013, 11:19:20 PM
Interstate 80 70mph max West Of Reno...
Disagree. I-80 is 65 MPH in California so a 65 MPH limit in Nevada west of Reno makes a lot of sense by maintaining some continuity. East of Reno, 75-80 MPH. I'm not sure if 85 MPH limits are appropriate given the terrain and the unpredictable weather (especially in the winter).
Screw continuity. Minnesota does this on I-90 a few miles before WI and I find it rather annoying. At least they imply that the speed limit is 75 a few miles after the SD state line going eastbound as well...
Quote from: Brandon on February 26, 2013, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
My natural driving speed on an open highway is about 88 mph.
Hopefully you don't drive a DeLorean with a flux capacitor. Otherwise, we know your true identity, McFly. :-D
Damn it, you beat me to that one :sombrero:
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 27, 2013, 01:33:40 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on February 26, 2013, 11:19:20 PM
Interstate 80 70mph max West Of Reno...
Disagree. I-80 is 65 MPH in California so a 65 MPH limit in Nevada west of Reno makes a lot of sense by maintaining some continuity. East of Reno, 75-80 MPH. I'm not sure if 85 MPH limits are appropriate given the terrain and the unpredictable weather (especially in the winter).
Why does continuity matter? I think most drivers are accustomed to the idea of things like speed limit changes and such when you cross a state line, especially given how common it is to see a speed limit sign right after you cross into another state (at least on Interstates, anyway).
I'm used to continuity myself. NY's interstates tend to keep the same speed limits when crossing borders, with the exception of those that end at Canada and possibly those that enter NYC (with NYC having 50 and NJ 55). I-95 also loses a truck limit upon entering CT, and I think I-84 was set to 55 at the eastern end by NYSDOT solely for continuity with CT.
Ugh, I hate Oregon, consistintely signing speed limits anywhere from 10 to 20 mph lower than everyone else :( It really pisses me off, driving in Oregon's surrounding states is a significantly better (and less stressful) experience, because you can drive what feels more natural, or not have to worry about being pulled over by driving the natural speed. My friend got pulled over (just a warning luckily) for driving 70 on US 20 east of Bend. In NV, that would be the speed limit, and in CA, WA, or ID, it would be only 5 over and no big deal.
Bad flashback, driving a semi from Bend to Ontario, OR dozens of times at 55 mph. It seems like there was only one four-way stop in the entire route.
Quote from: djsinco on March 22, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Bad flashback, driving a semi from Bend to Ontario, OR dozens of times at 55 mph. It seems like there was only one four-way stop in the entire route.
what's wrong with having only one four-way stop?
Quote from: doorknob60 on March 22, 2013, 02:46:48 AM
Ugh, I hate Oregon, consistintely signing speed limits anywhere from 10 to 20 mph lower than everyone else :( It really pisses me off, driving in Oregon's surrounding states is a significantly better (and less stressful) experience, because you can drive what feels more natural, or not have to worry about being pulled over by driving the natural speed. My friend got pulled over (just a warning luckily) for driving 70 on US 20 east of Bend. In NV, that would be the speed limit, and in CA, WA, or ID, it would be only 5 over and no big deal.
As a native Oregonian, I concur with your sentiment!
Rick
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 22, 2013, 09:30:27 AM
Quote from: djsinco on March 22, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Bad flashback, driving a semi from Bend to Ontario, OR dozens of times at 55 mph. It seems like there was only one four-way stop in the entire route.
what's wrong with having only one four-way stop?
My point was that since the road only had very minimal traffic, the 55 Speed was quite insane.
Another article on the subject, from the Las Vegas Review Journal (3/13/13):
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/nevada-legislators-voice-concerns-about-bill-boost-speed-limits
Tracking SB 191 in the legislature:
http://leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?DocumentType=2&BillNo=191
As of this writing, it has passed in the Senate and has been forwarded to the Assembly. This is partway to becoming law.
Looking at the text of the bill, I appreciate that it is pretty much only changing the maximum speed limit and nothing else with existing law. It's also adding to the gradual step/limited fine provisions that impose a minimal penalty for speeding 5mph over at higher speed limits--that's a good thing as it's a little known perk to the existing law.
EDIT: Repaired link to article
Quote from: roadfro on April 04, 2013, 05:35:00 AM
Another article on the subject, from the Las Vegas Review Journal (3/13/13):
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/nevada-legi/slators-voice-concerns-about-bill-boost-speed-limits
this one is "page not found" for me. any luck from anyone else?
QuoteLooking at the text of the bill, I appreciate that it is pretty much only changing the maximum speed limit and nothing else with existing law. It's also adding to the gradual step/limited fine provisions that impose a minimal penalty for speeding 5mph over at higher speed limits--that's a good thing as it's a little known perk to the existing law.
seems reasonable to me. it allows transportation engineers more leeway in setting speed limits - which should indeed be their responsibility, as opposed to that of elected officials, who are much less well-trained in the relevant issues.
This would be great to see!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2013, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 04, 2013, 05:35:00 AM
Another article on the subject, from the Las Vegas Review Journal (3/13/13):
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/nevada-legislators-voice-concerns-about-bill-boost-speed-limits
this one is "page not found" for me. any luck from anyone else?
Had a random forward slash in there. Fixed in original post and in quote here.
Older article from late February in the LA Times:
Nevada perhaps to match Texas, eyes 85 mph speed limit (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nevada-perhaps-to-match-texas-eyes-85-mph-speed-limit-20130226,0,1773582.story)
No movement on the bill since last week. It is in the Assembly transportation committee.
Also used to speed limit continunity to myself with some examples in the Lehigh Valley Area like US-22 keeping it's 25-45 mph speed limit from the 13th street exit to the Phillipsburg High School, and I-78 East and West keeping it's 55-65 Mph Speed Limit from exit 75 in Easton to exit 3 in Still Valley. Perhaps NV should have an 85 mph speed limit in all rural highways and this might lead to CA,NV,UT, and OR using 85 mph speed zones in their Rural highways. Currently I-15 South from Las Vegas,NV to Ontario,Ca has 70 mph speed limit and of NV decides to go 85 on LV to Primm then CA will go 85 on Ontario to CA/NV stateline and also Escondido to Corona on I-15 https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_nb_exit_043_01.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_nb_exit_043_01.jpg). Also this might require NV to use 70 mph day 65 night on Las Vegas freeways if the planned 85 mph speed limit goes ahead
https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_027_03.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_027_03.jpg)
OR will go 85 when hell freezes over. They can't even do 70; while the law sets the "standard maximum" at 70, the DOT considers every mile of highway to be a "special exception" to that rule warranting 65 or lower.
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on April 20, 2013, 12:40:54 AM
Also this might require NV to use 70 mph day 65 night on Las Vegas freeways if the planned 85 mph speed limit goes ahead
https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_027_03.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_027_03.jpg)
Not sure where this statement comes from... Nevada does not use night speeds.
From what I recall reading, urban freeway speed limits would likely remain unchanged, staying at 65. It was places between cities and towns that NDOT could change limits on (after performing speed/safety studies).
Quote from: roadfro on April 20, 2013, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on April 20, 2013, 12:40:54 AM
Also this might require NV to use 70 mph day 65 night on Las Vegas freeways if the planned 85 mph speed limit goes ahead
https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_027_03.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_027_03.jpg)
Not sure where this statement comes from... Nevada does not use night speeds.
From what I recall reading, urban freeway speed limits would likely remain unchanged, staying at 65. It was places between cities and towns that NDOT could change limits on (after performing speed/safety studies).
Perhaps I was think of TX which had night speed limits up to 2012. Also NDOT will retain the 65 mph speed zones in the cities therefore they should put some safety corridors on their highways and NJDOT,PENNDOT and Caltrans do have safety corridors that have fines doubled http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=PR&Date=20130401&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=1010403&Ref=AR&maxH=230&maxW=370&border=0&Q=80 (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=PR&Date=20130401&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=1010403&Ref=AR&maxH=230&maxW=370&border=0&Q=80)
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on April 20, 2013, 12:40:54 AM
Perhaps NV should have an 85 mph speed limit in all rural highways and this might lead to CA,NV,UT, and OR using 85 mph speed zones in their Rural highways. Currently I-15 South from Las Vegas,NV to Ontario,Ca has 70 mph speed limit and of NV decides to go 85 on LV to Primm then CA will go 85 on Ontario to CA/NV stateline and also Escondido to Corona on I-15
I think you'll have a hard time convincing Caltrans and the CHP to allow 85 MPH speed limits on any freeway. There's two problems that I see. First, California has a 55 MPH limit on big rigs and cars towing trailers so if 85 MPH limits are introduced, then the 30 MPH difference would be a huge problem. After seeing trucks tailgate me doing 70-75 MPH on I-15 between Las Vegas and the California state line makes me very glad California sets their speed limit at 55 MPH.
Another problem is, in California, speed limits can only be reduced at most 10 MPH at a time in an effort to eliminate speed traps. With an 85 MPH limit, you'll have to first drop the limit to 75 MPH before dropping it to 65 MPH. That would mean the 85 MPH limit would have to end a couple of miles before entering an urban area to allow drivers enough time to slow down.
With all that said, I believe there are some stretches of rural California freeways where an 85 MPH speed limit might be appropriate given the terrain and traffic volumes. Getting the Caltrans, the CHP and state legislators to go along with it is another story.
Note: As an aside, I'm quite surprised that I-15 retains its 70 MPH limit through the cities of Barstow and Victorville. I guess these cities aren't "urban" enough to warrant the lowering of the speed limit to 65 MPH.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2013, 03:39:33 AM
Another problem is, in California, speed limits can only be reduced at most 10 MPH at a time in an effort to eliminate speed traps. With an 85 MPH limit, you'll have to first drop the limit to 75 MPH before dropping it to 65 MPH. That would mean the 85 MPH limit would have to end a couple of miles before entering an urban area to allow drivers enough time to slow down.
Does CA also have a law requiring these zones to be a mile long? In NY it's often done on more major roads (but not always) and those speed zones are usually 1/10 mile long. Even on interstates, the longest I've seen is 1/2 mile long.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2013, 03:39:33 AM
I think you'll have a hard time convincing Caltrans and the CHP to allow 85 MPH speed limits on any freeway. There's two problems that I see. First, California has a 55 MPH limit on big rigs and cars towing trailers so if 85 MPH limits are introduced, then the 30 MPH difference would be a huge problem. After seeing trucks tailgate me doing 70-75 MPH on I-15 between Las Vegas and the California state line makes me very glad California sets their speed limit at 55 MPH.
I'm the exact opposite way. I'd rather not have one truck doing 61 passing another doing 60.
I'd be okay with raising the truck speed limit to be 75 if the general one goes to 85.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 22, 2013, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2013, 03:39:33 AM
I think you'll have a hard time convincing Caltrans and the CHP to allow 85 MPH speed limits on any freeway. There's two problems that I see. First, California has a 55 MPH limit on big rigs and cars towing trailers so if 85 MPH limits are introduced, then the 30 MPH difference would be a huge problem. After seeing trucks tailgate me doing 70-75 MPH on I-15 between Las Vegas and the California state line makes me very glad California sets their speed limit at 55 MPH.
I'm the exact opposite way. I'd rather not have one truck doing 61 passing another doing 60.
I'd be okay with raising the truck speed limit to be 75 if the general one goes to 85.
Good luck getting trucks to go that fast, with speed limiters on so many of them.
85mph on I-5 in the Central Valley could be manageable if another lane were added in each direction. Of course, there's no money for that.
Quote from: vdeane on April 22, 2013, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2013, 03:39:33 AM
Another problem is, in California, speed limits can only be reduced at most 10 MPH at a time in an effort to eliminate speed traps. With an 85 MPH limit, you'll have to first drop the limit to 75 MPH before dropping it to 65 MPH. That would mean the 85 MPH limit would have to end a couple of miles before entering an urban area to allow drivers enough time to slow down.
Does CA also have a law requiring these zones to be a mile long? In NY it's often done on more major roads (but not always) and those speed zones are usually 1/10 mile long. Even on interstates, the longest I've seen is 1/2 mile long.
I'm not sure how long each of these zones need to be. 1/10th of a mile is way too short for a freeway IMO but I think 1/2 mile is reasonable. Keep in mind that at 85 MPH, you're going to cover one mile in a little more than 40 seconds.
If I take the foot off the gas, my speed drops like a rock. Of course, I do drive a stick shift. Automatics take longer to slow down, but that's what the breaks are for; that's the price you pay for not having a "real" car.
The 1/10 mile zones I mentioned were from going from 55 to 40 to 30 on NY 12, so I don't think it's a huge issue on freeways if it isn't here.
Try slowing like that with a 40 ton truck, which are legal on those same roads.
Another thing common in NY state, the famous "Reduced Speed Ahead," or "Speed Zone Ahead" signs. The following sign usually tells you what the actual new speed limit is, although sometimes this is around a bend or at the bottom of a hill. These signs, along with "Speed Zone Ends," should be outlawed, as they are obviously not communicating the concept fully.
Quote from: djsinco on April 23, 2013, 01:12:59 PM
Try slowing like that with a 40 ton truck, which are legal on those same roads.
Another thing common in NY state, the famous "Reduced Speed Ahead," or "Speed Zone Ahead" signs. The following sign usually tells you what the actual new speed limit is, although sometimes this is around a bend or at the bottom of a hill. These signs, along with "Speed Zone Ends," should be outlawed, as they are obviously not communicating the concept fully.
Exactly. Even when there's a standard speed limit in a state, it's still confusing as heck for people not from the area. :clap:
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:21:12 PM
OR will go 85 when hell freezes over.
No, I doubt they'd do it even then.
Quote from: djsinco on April 23, 2013, 01:12:59 PM
Try slowing like that with a 40 ton truck, which are legal on those same roads.
Another thing common in NY state, the famous "Reduced Speed Ahead," or "Speed Zone Ahead" signs. The following sign usually tells you what the actual new speed limit is, although sometimes this is around a bend or at the bottom of a hill. These signs, along with "Speed Zone Ends," should be outlawed, as they are obviously not communicating the concept fully.
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't all be forced to slow down because of what a truck might need to do. Should we all have to stop at railroad crossings because school busses have to?
NY is phasing out the "speed zone ahead", "reduced speed ahead", and "end XX limit" signs, but it's more of a "change when replaced" policy rather that actively changing signage.
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:21:12 PM
OR will go 85 when hell freezes over. They can't even do 70; while the law sets the "standard maximum" at 70, the DOT considers every mile of highway to be a "special exception" to that rule warranting 65 or lower.
Since Clinton repealed the (revised) NMSL law in '95, there's been no less than a dozen attempts among state legislators here in OR to raise the speed limit, most of them proposing a 75mph limit. They're inevitably shot down by whichever Governor K (Kitzhaber or Kulongoski) we have in office. The 70mph bill did sneak through under Kulongoski's watch, but it was with the provision that a "study" be undertaken, which, rather than being done by the two state engineering schools (OIT and OSU), was offloaded to PSU and OHSU, who were clearly biased against even that modest increase, and they produced a shoddy report that preserved the status quo.
The problem is that it's never going to get through the legislature. That said, it's actually possible to get it done without involving the governor or ODOT or any other would-be obstruction--use the initiative system and put it up for statewide vote. No one seems to have quite figured that out yet, but it's perfectly within the bounds of the initiative system.
The deadline for passage by the NV Assembly Transportation Committee is May 17, and then for passage by the full Assembly the deadline is May 24. So we'll know fairly soon whether this will go to Governor Sandoval for signature. I don't think I've heard anything about the Governor's position on the bill.
SB 191 passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee yesterday (https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013/App#/77th2013/Bill/Overview/SB191) and now heads for a floor vote in the Assembly, which could happen as soon as tomorrow. If passed, Governor Sandoval then has 5 days to sign or veto or allow the bill to become law without his signature. I'm expecting an 85 mph maximum on NDOT-maintained highways to be the law of the State of Nevada shortly. Of course, then it's up to the discretion of NDOT to make the actual changes in any specific speed limits, but the consensus seems to be 85 mph on most of I-80 from Fernley to the Utah border and on I-15 from northeast of Las Vegas to the Arizona border.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 15, 2013, 07:39:18 PM
SB 191 passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee yesterday (https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013/App#/77th2013/Bill/Overview/SB191) and now heads for a floor vote in the Assembly, which could happen as soon as tomorrow. If passed, Governor Sandoval then has 5 days to sign or veto or allow the bill to become law without his signature. I'm expecting an 85 mph maximum on NDOT-maintained highways to be the law of the State of Nevada shortly. Of course, then it's up to the discretion of NDOT to make the actual changes in any specific speed limits, but the consensus seems to be 85 mph on most of I-80 from Fernley to the Utah border and on I-15 from northeast of Las Vegas to the Arizona border.
That's good what about I-580 from Reno to Carson city would it still keep it's current 65-70 mph speed limit or become 85 just like I-80,I-15. Also the proposed I-11 would be 85 mph north of LV on the way to Reno/Carson City
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on May 17, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
That's good what about I-580 from Reno to Carson city would it still keep it's current 65-70 mph speed limit or become 85 just like I-80,I-15.
Given the hilly terrain and often gusty winds, I don't think I-580 should get an 85 MPH speed limit between Mt Rose Parkway and Carson City.
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on May 17, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Also the proposed I-11 would be 85 mph north of LV on the way to Reno/Carson City
Did I miss something? Are there formal plans to build a freeway connecting Las Vegas and Reno? I thought I-11 was to end at I-15 in Las Vegas and go no further.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 17, 2013, 05:34:14 PM
Did I miss something?
You missed the memo about Interstatefan78 posts being nonsense.
As an aside, I really don't know why US 95 couldn't just be upgraded to a four lane and just be done with it. Why bother with a new sign. An expressway with interchanges as needed is a far better method. US 395 does well that way from SR-14 to Mono Lake.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 17, 2013, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on May 17, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
That's good what about I-580 from Reno to Carson city would it still keep it's current 65-70 mph speed limit or become 85 just like I-80,I-15.
Given the hilly terrain and often gusty winds, I don't think I-580 should get an 85 MPH speed limit between Mt Rose Parkway and Carson City.
That stretch is too busy, in addition to the hills and windy area, to be considered for 85. The 85 speed is only being considered for extremely rural areas...I-580 is far from that.
Quote
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on May 17, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Also the proposed I-11 would be 85 mph north of LV on the way to Reno/Carson City
Did I miss something? Are there formal plans to build a freeway connecting Las Vegas and Reno? I thought I-11 was to end at I-15 in Las Vegas and go no further.
You didn't miss anything. I-11 in Nevada would replace I-515, but there's no serious plans to go further north than that (there's not even serious plans for I-11 anywhere in Nevada yet).
Quote from: sdmichael on May 17, 2013, 11:01:17 PM
As an aside, I really don't know why US 95 couldn't just be upgraded to a four lane and just be done with it. Why bother with a new sign. An expressway with interchanges as needed is a far better method. US 395 does well that way from SR-14 to Mono Lake.
As it is right now, US 95 as a four-lane highway is hardly needed...
Quote from: roadfro on May 18, 2013, 06:07:39 AM
Quote from: sdmichael on May 17, 2013, 11:01:17 PM
As an aside, I really don't know why US 95 couldn't just be upgraded to a four lane and just be done with it. Why bother with a new sign. An expressway with interchanges as needed is a far better method. US 395 does well that way from SR-14 to Mono Lake.
As it is right now, US 95 as a four-lane highway is hardly needed...
That was pretty much my point. No reason for four lanes, even less for an Interstate freeway.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 07, 2013, 11:28:04 AM
The deadline for passage by the NV Assembly Transportation Committee is May 17, and then for passage by the full Assembly the deadline is May 24. So we'll know fairly soon whether this will go to Governor Sandoval for signature. I don't think I've heard anything about the Governor's position on the bill.
Somebody in the Assembly must have wanted SB 191 killed. It appears to have missed the midnight deadline for a vote. Nevada's 75 mph maximum speed law remains in effect.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 25, 2013, 01:01:09 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on May 07, 2013, 11:28:04 AM
The deadline for passage by the NV Assembly Transportation Committee is May 17, and then for passage by the full Assembly the deadline is May 24. So we'll know fairly soon whether this will go to Governor Sandoval for signature. I don't think I've heard anything about the Governor's position on the bill.
Somebody in the Assembly must have wanted SB 191 killed. It appears to have missed the midnight deadline for a vote. Nevada's 75 mph maximum speed law remains in effect.
http://nooooooooooooooo.com/