Changes to the Speed Limit, tolls on the Turnpike, funding of roads in Northern Ohio and new license plate material...all in the new roads bill.
Story Here: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/03/ohio_senate_passes_bill_that_h.html#incart_river#incart_m-rpt-2
It's about time, now if we could get Illinois and Wisconsin on board with 70 that would be great.
As much as people might say why is the turnpike going to fund non-turnpike ODOT roads, it does make sense (at least in Ohio) since we have three major interstates (I-80/I-90/I-76) that all leave the turnpike at some point and head to other major destinations. Especially cross-country or regional traffic using I-80 or I-90 into PA.
I'd be curious to see what percentage of cross-state traffic actually rides the entire Ohio Turnpike end-to-end.
The article also says rural two lanes roads could be posted at 60.
This article has less info, at the same time less Cleveland-centric:
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2013/03/13/oh--ohio-roads-budget.html
For some reason, when I hear Kasich + Turnpike, I think about leasing to a private company. On closer inspection, that doesn't look like it's happening – right?
As far as the speed increases, I think this change is reasonable, not too big, and not too small (at least for now).
This also probably seals the extinction fate of Ohio's unique 65 MPH signs. Those signs still up have been endangered ever since they raised the limit to 65 for all vehicles a few years back and half of the sign was blanked out.
Quote from: vtk on March 14, 2013, 02:24:34 AM
For some reason, when I hear Kasich + Turnpike, I think about leasing to a private company. On closer inspection, that doesn't look like it's happening – right?
As far as the speed increases, I think this change is reasonable, not too big, and not too small (at least for now).
Correct, he has completely ruled out leasing it. The plan is to issue bonds (http://www.ohturnpikeanalysis.com/) against future revenue - pretty much what states do anyway.
I like the speed limit idea, although I wonder if the current definition of "rural" will stay. If so, most of Columbus' interstates will be posted at 70. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Aren't the beltways already 65. I'd imagine that rural would mean any highway outside of the beltways. Or you could be like that state up north and have them be 70 into the cities too.
I do like the idea of having 60 on the two-lane highways, isn't that a bit rare for eastern states. That means I could travel west on US 36 at 60 in western Ohio and cross over into Indiana and be forced to go down to 55.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 14, 2013, 05:49:25 PM
I do like the idea of having 60 on the two-lane highways, isn't that a bit rare for eastern states. That means I could travel west on US 36 at 60 in western Ohio and cross over into Indiana and be forced to go down to 55.
I would mind that less than having to go 55 in both states! I think there are plenty of two-lane roads in each state that are safely signed at 60 (or even 65, but probably not 70).
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 14, 2013, 05:49:25 PM
Aren't the beltways already 65. I'd imagine that rural would mean any highway outside of the beltways. Or you could be like that state up north and have them be 70 into the cities too.
I just looked up the relevant law and, at least to my non-lawyer eyes, there isn't a definition of rural. It basically says if the folks in charge think the road is up to it, the limit can go up to 65. That would explain the sizable bits of road inside 270 then. I guess that leaves my original question - if they change 65 to 70, I wonder how much of the current 65 will go up.
Roads are classified as rural and urban (and then subclassified based on that). Thus, the classifications are already there. Of course, some of them may be a bit out of date if there's been significant growth over the past several years. It'll be up to the DOT engineers to determine if the maximum speed limit permitted is appropriate, or if the roadway should be signed with a lower limit.
The gist I got from the articles on the extent of the 70 MPH zones is exactly in line with what I already thought ODOT should and probably would do with enabling legislatiion. The circumferential and loop Interstates would be the rough boundaries in most cases, themselves remaining 65 MPH. So near Columbus, I-70 would probably (going eastbound) drop to 65 at Hilliard—Rome Rd, have its existing 55 stretch downtown, then go back up to 70 MPH at Brice Rd or OH 256. Similarly, I-71 would be 70 MPH only south of Stringtown Rd and north of Gemini Pl.
I suspect there are still one-piece 65/55 and 60/55 speed limit signs remaining on non-Interstate freeways and expressways, which shouldn't change, unless the truck speed limit on non-Interstates is raised. Hmm, could we potentially see new 60/55 signs on two-lane roads heading out of cities and towns?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2013, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 14, 2013, 05:49:25 PM
I do like the idea of having 60 on the two-lane highways, isn't that a bit rare for eastern states. That means I could travel west on US 36 at 60 in western Ohio and cross over into Indiana and be forced to go down to 55.
I would mind that less than having to go 55 in both states! I think there are plenty of two-lane roads in each state that are safely signed at 60 (or even 65, but probably not 70).
Without looking it up (always a chancy proposition) I recall that the state speed limit in Ohio was 60 back in the pre-national speed limit days. So it is reasonable to go back up to that level today. I also seem to recall, though it's kind of hazy, that the limit went down to 50 at night. That one went by the wayside at some point, I think.
Indiana had its statewide limit at 65 before the 55 limit came in, which seems excessive for most 2-laners in retrospect. We of course have stuck with 55, except for interstates and a few expressways. Though we shouldn't return to 65, it may be time for Indiana to consider 60.
I thought Indiana already bumped many of its state roads (including some 2-lane highways) up to 60 MPH when its Interstates went up to 70 MPH.
If any 2-laner in Indiana is up to 60, I missed it. I'd welcome it if warranted. The only places I've seen the 60 limit is on divided highways, like US 31 between Plymouth and Kokomo, SR 2 west of South Bend, and SR 49 north of Valparaiso. They raised it to 65 on some freeways that aren't interstates, like the St. Joseph Valley Parkway.
If anyone has seen Hoosier 2-laners with a 60 limit, I'd like examples.
There aren't any, which is why I made my comment about US 36, as an example of a highway that crosses the state line from Ohio to Indiana.
Quote from: theline on March 15, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
If any 2-laner in Indiana is up to 60, I missed it. I'd welcome it if warranted. The only places I've seen the 60 limit is on divided highways, like US 31 between Plymouth and Kokomo, SR 2 west of South Bend, and SR 49 north of Valparaiso. They raised it to 65 on some freeways that aren't interstates, like the St. Joseph Valley Parkway.
If anyone has seen Hoosier 2-laners with a 60 limit, I'd like examples.
Never seen one either. 55 is the highest I've ever seen on any state-numbered or US-numbered undivided Indiana road, no matter how rural. It would indeed be interesting to go from a speed limit of 60 in Ohio on something like US 224 (which I will use instead of 30 to 469 to CR 900 on occasion as a change of pace on my way to US 24 in Huntington) to 55 in Indiana. I would have thought that if it ever did change, it would change the other way around.
What is odd in my mind is that on Interstates, Indiana has posted more liberal speed limits than Ohio for years (although Ohio's truck limit on rural interstates (same as for cars) is now the same as Indiana's 65) while the rural four-lane dual carriageway expressway speed limit is often more liberal in Ohio. I always find it odd on US 30 heading into Indiana from Ohio that the limit drops from 65/55 to 60. Yes, the trucks may not mind, but the drop from 65 to 60 seems somewhat arbitrary especially when Indiana offers a higher Interstate limit. There are always quirks, but this one always struck me as odd.
70 on Interstates in Ohio does seem reasonable when you consider that it's probably closer to the real 85th %ile anyway and that roads like US 30 that are expressways with intersections are already posted for 65 just like Interstates. It's got to be possible to travel a little faster on a completely access-controlled Interstate than on expressway with intersections...
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 16, 2013, 06:53:46 PM
roads like US 30 that are expressways with intersections are already posted for 65 just like Interstates. It's got to be possible to travel a little faster on a completely access-controlled Interstate than on expressway with intersections...
Actually, some rural expressways in Ohio are 60, and some are only 55. I don't expect those to change under the new law.
What's got me wondering now is whether or not I-75 will get a higher speed limit between Cincinnati and Dayton. It's well outside of each city's "outerbelt", but solidly suburban in character for the whole stretch.
Quote from: vtk on March 16, 2013, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 16, 2013, 06:53:46 PM
roads like US 30 that are expressways with intersections are already posted for 65 just like Interstates. It's got to be possible to travel a little faster on a completely access-controlled Interstate than on expressway with intersections...
Actually, some rural expressways in Ohio are 60, and some are only 55. I don't expect those to change under the new law.
I definitely didn't mean that all were 65, just that they go that high. Indiana doesn't post any higher than 60 despite the same fundamental design and conditions. The speed limit dropping from 65 in Ohio to 60 in Indiana on US 30 just seems odd when Indiana has a higher ceiling on speed limits overall. They can and do post some things higher and some things lower than other places.
Indiana only allows 70 mph on 2x2 interstates. Another strange thing about IN is that US-31 in northern Hamilton County (no access control, but four lanes divided) has a 60 mph speed limit, while fully access controlled I-465 in the same county has a 55 mph speed limit.
Quote from: ftballfan on March 17, 2013, 10:50:45 PM
Indiana only allows 70 mph on 2x2 interstates. Another strange thing about IN is that US-31 in northern Hamilton County (no access control, but four lanes divided) has a 60 mph speed limit, while fully access controlled I-465 in the same county has a 55 mph speed limit.
Yeah, but there's a difference between northern Hamilton County and southern Hamilton County. Not that I'm arguing that the speed limit along 465 should be 55, it should be 65 if not 70. It just seems that regardless of what kind of 2x2 highway it is, there's a definition between rural and urban and southern Hamilton County these days can be considered urban (assuming too that suburban is lumped in there with urban.) Plus, with US 31 being turned to a freeway through most of the county, the 55 speed limit will be extended up north to at least Westfield.
Quote from: ftballfan on March 17, 2013, 10:50:45 PM
Indiana only allows 70 mph on 2x2 interstates. Another strange thing about IN is that US-31 in northern Hamilton County (no access control, but four lanes divided) has a 60 mph speed limit, while fully access controlled I-465 in the same county has a 55 mph speed limit.
That should be 2x2+. I-94 (all 3x3 or more) is 70 mph from the Toll Road east to Michigan.
Not one in southern Indiana from what I have seen. Far, far too fast for the curvy roads around here. US-150 is dangerous enough.......
Quote from: theline on March 15, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
If any 2-laner in Indiana is up to 60, I missed it. I'd welcome it if warranted. The only places I've seen the 60 limit is on divided highways, like US 31 between Plymouth and Kokomo, SR 2 west of South Bend, and SR 49 north of Valparaiso. They raised it to 65 on some freeways that aren't interstates, like the St. Joseph Valley Parkway.
If anyone has seen Hoosier 2-laners with a 60 limit, I'd like examples.
I can recall in Indiana, before the national mandate of 55 mph speed limits, on state highways there were signs simply stating "Resume Safe Speed" when leaving city / town limits.
You recall right Monty. I remember as a child telling my dad that "resume safe speed" meant the driver could go any speed that he felt was safe. Dad assured me that the state troopers would have a different idea. It meant you could resume Indiana's rural speed limit, 65.
I don't recall if they commonly had "resume safe speed" signs in other states.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 17, 2013, 11:22:49 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on March 17, 2013, 10:50:45 PM
Indiana only allows 70 mph on 2x2 interstates. Another strange thing about IN is that US-31 in northern Hamilton County (no access control, but four lanes divided) has a 60 mph speed limit, while fully access controlled I-465 in the same county has a 55 mph speed limit.
Yeah, but there's a difference between northern Hamilton County and southern Hamilton County. Not that I'm arguing that the speed limit along 465 should be 55, it should be 65 if not 70. It just seems that regardless of what kind of 2x2 highway it is, there's a definition between rural and urban and southern Hamilton County these days can be considered urban (assuming too that suburban is lumped in there with urban.) Plus, with US 31 being turned to a freeway through most of the county, the 55 speed limit will be extended up north to at least Westfield.
465 should have a 65+ mph speed limit because the speed of the actual traffic flow on the Interstate is nowhere close to 55 mph... you'll get ran over if you don't drive 70 mph. Literally people drive faster on that than they do on I-65 outside of Indianapolis (where it's zoned 70 mph).
Anyway the change to 70 mph has been a good one in Indiana as the actual speeds everyone drives haven't went up 5 mph. I'm not sold on 60 mph on 2-lane highways... that would have to be on a case by case basis I think.
Quote from: theline on March 22, 2013, 12:40:48 AM
You recall right Monty. I remember as a child telling my dad that "resume safe speed" meant the driver could go any speed that he felt was safe. Dad assured me that the state troopers would have a different idea. It meant you could resume Indiana's rural speed limit, 65.
I don't recall if they commonly had "resume safe speed" signs in other states.
NY was "end XX limit", though they only appeared on two lane roads.
Quote from: monty on March 21, 2013, 07:44:49 PM
I can recall in Indiana, before the national mandate of 55 mph speed limits, on state highways there were signs simply stating "Resume Safe Speed" when leaving city / town limits.
The NJ Turnpike used to post "Resume Normal Speed" after construction zones. I guess that meant whatever motorists felt their normal speed was!
Quote from: 6a on March 14, 2013, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 14, 2013, 05:49:25 PM
Aren't the beltways already 65. I'd imagine that rural would mean any highway outside of the beltways. Or you could be like that state up north and have them be 70 into the cities too.
I just looked up the relevant law and, at least to my non-lawyer eyes, there isn't a definition of rural. It basically says if the folks in charge think the road is up to it, the limit can go up to 65. That would explain the sizable bits of road inside 270 then. I guess that leaves my original question - if they change 65 to 70, I wonder how much of the current 65 will go up.
I always say I'll admit being wrong, and this is a sure fire example of why I'm not a lawyer. There is a definition of rural, but some urban interstates can go to 65 anyway. I don't think all of this will be 70, as there are some odd gaps, but here you go.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2F70mph.jpg&hash=cde6fc4072b4e33aa170715465f4947557ff5dd2)
Several odd gaps it looks like on I-75 from Dayton to Toledo and I-70 east of Columbus. On the former, I could see 70 MPH everywhere except within the Lima and Findlay areas and I-70 outside of Zanesville and Wheeling.
Is the Turnpike part of this? Isn't it 70 already? Would they actually
The back-and-forth between 65 and 70 if done as illustrated would be a circus. If it's based solely on population of territories that the roads happen to pass through the limits of without consideration of the character of the road/traffic not changing, then they are just setting up speed traps galore at those points, especially if the locals can run them.
I'm not sure how exactly ODOT arrived at that selection of "rural" Intestates, but I hope the application of higher speed limits isn't so on-again-off-again. That 5-mile chunk between Cincy and Dayton? Don't even bother. And I'm not sure those little cities along mostly-rural corridors warrant a short stretch held to 65 just because they've developed light commercial districts near the existing once-rural interchanges. More specifically, I really don't know why the part of I-70 between exits 85 and 91 isn't considered rural – unless there's some kind of commuter traffic threshold involved and West Jeffersonians happen to push it over the top.
City police departments can and do patrol the Interstates within their borders.
The turnpike is indeed already 70MPH for most if not all of its length, and I don't think this law will change speed limits anywhere on the Turnpike.
Quote from: Brandon on March 18, 2013, 05:34:40 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on March 17, 2013, 10:50:45 PM
Indiana only allows 70 mph on 2x2 interstates. Another strange thing about IN is that US-31 in northern Hamilton County (no access control, but four lanes divided) has a 60 mph speed limit, while fully access controlled I-465 in the same county has a 55 mph speed limit.
That should be 2x2+. I-94 (all 3x3 or more) is 70 mph from the Toll Road east to Michigan.
As is the recently completed stretch of the Toll Road from west of I-94 to Cline Avenue (yes, the 70 zone goes all the way to the Westpoint Toll Barrier, but the Toll Road is 3x3 from I-94 to Cline only).
The Ohio Turnpike was already 70, but this was a special case since truckers were unhappy with paying hiked tolls while driving only 65. The 70 mph speed limit was placed to keep truckers on the Turnpike while keeping the alternate routes from getting clogged up with "shunpikers" (a great example being the freeway portion of Ohio Route 2 from east of Toledo to Cleveland).
I'm all for Ohio joining the 70 club, but they have to be much more consistent than what I'm seeing on the map. There are too many in-and-out spots.
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Ohio is too damn conservative on its interstate speed limit "zones". It's like every little town with at least 3 traffic lights that is right up against the interstate in Ohio warrants a "reduced speed zone". It's all about local politics -- when the freeways were first built, there was no dickering with the 70 MPH interstate speed limit through every town over 5,000. Most of those little towns, especially along I-75, have only one or two exits, and I don't see that much local traffic adding much to the thru traffic in those areas.
The only other state in which I regularly traveled thru with ultra-conservative speed zones was I-90 in PA. Last time I went through there they had an insanely L-o-n-g stretch of 55 MPH through the Erie area. I almost want to say that the zone was so long, it made up darn near half of I-90's total mileage through that sliver of the Keystone State (and a good chunk of the other half always seemed to have some sort of construction on it, which also brought the speeds down immensely).
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Setting up 70-65-70-65-70 as shown on the Dispatch map is just begging the towns where it drops to 65 to go out and set up speed traps. Just last week the infamous Linndale mayor's court was dissolved by law, but the village says that it will continue to park its cruisers dangerously in the left shoulder to run its speed trap, just sending those ticketed to the Parma Municipal Court instead of its own mayor's court, and still getting a cut of the ticket $$. It would be nice if Ohio were to accompany any increase to a max of 70 with a law that prohibits anyone but the state patrol from running speed enforcement on interstates.
I'm still hopeful that the spots and gaps in that map are merely artifacts of unfiltered GIS results and it won't be followed literally. It's already been said* that ODOT won't automatically raise the speed limit immediately everywhere it can, so there's already a layer of human oversight in implementation.
*I think I read this in a Sunday issue of the Dispatch that was still unsold on Wednesday. On 2-lane roads, ODOT will cherrypick highways for 60MPH limits based on expense of replacing signs, or something.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 29, 2013, 12:42:45 PM
Ohio is too damn conservative on its interstate speed limit "zones". It's like every little town with at least 3 traffic lights that is right up against the interstate in Ohio warrants a "reduced speed zone". It's all about local politics -- when the freeways were first built, there was no dickering with the 70 MPH interstate speed limit through every town over 5,000. Most of those little towns, especially along I-75, have only one or two exits, and I don't see that much local traffic adding much to the thru traffic in those areas.
The only other state in which I regularly traveled thru with ultra-conservative speed zones was I-90 in PA. Last time I went through there they had an insanely L-o-n-g stretch of 55 MPH through the Erie area. I almost want to say that the zone was so long, it made up darn near half of I-90's total mileage through that sliver of the Keystone State (and a good chunk of the other half always seemed to have some sort of construction on it, which also brought the speeds down immensely).
All of Pennsylvania has these - they are using the original rules of "rural" when the 65 exception first came out - the 55 zones start way outside the urban zones and are in existence for almost every city.
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 29, 2013, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Setting up 70-65-70-65-70 as shown on the Dispatch map is just begging the towns where it drops to 65 to go out and set up speed traps.
This was my thought upon seeing the Dispatch map as well, and I've always thought that the opinion that Ohio's freeways were too patrolled was a bit overblown outside of the more infamous examples we're all aware of.
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 30, 2013, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 29, 2013, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Setting up 70-65-70-65-70 as shown on the Dispatch map is just begging the towns where it drops to 65 to go out and set up speed traps.
This was my thought upon seeing the Dispatch map as well, and I've always thought that the opinion that Ohio's freeways were too patrolled was a bit overblown outside of the more infamous examples we're all aware of.
I don't know, man. There's a 20-mile stretch of I-270 on the east side of Columbus where, on any given day, you can be clocked by five different agencies. It's like they all stake out their own little cut in the median.
Quote from: 6a on March 30, 2013, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 30, 2013, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 29, 2013, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Setting up 70-65-70-65-70 as shown on the Dispatch map is just begging the towns where it drops to 65 to go out and set up speed traps.
This was my thought upon seeing the Dispatch map as well, and I've always thought that the opinion that Ohio's freeways were too patrolled was a bit overblown outside of the more infamous examples we're all aware of.
I don't know, man. There's a 20-mile stretch of I-270 on the east side of Columbus where, on any given day, you can be clocked by five different agencies. It's like they all stake out their own little cut in the median.
What beltway doesn't run through a handful of suburbs in a short distance?
Quote from: vtk on March 30, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 30, 2013, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 30, 2013, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 29, 2013, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Setting up 70-65-70-65-70 as shown on the Dispatch map is just begging the towns where it drops to 65 to go out and set up speed traps.
This was my thought upon seeing the Dispatch map as well, and I've always thought that the opinion that Ohio's freeways were too patrolled was a bit overblown outside of the more infamous examples we're all aware of.
I don't know, man. There's a 20-mile stretch of I-270 on the east side of Columbus where, on any given day, you can be clocked by five different agencies. It's like they all stake out their own little cut in the median.
What beltway doesn't run through a handful of suburbs in a short distance?
That wasn't the point of my post.
Quote from: vtk on March 30, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 30, 2013, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 30, 2013, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 29, 2013, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2013, 11:56:06 AM
Maybe the 70 mph limit is designed to create speed traps. The only reason Michigan has consistent 70 mph zones is because they banned local governments from doing traffic enforcement on state roads. One town even withdrew requests for a lower limit when the state police threatened to arrest any other cop they spotted on the road.
Setting up 70-65-70-65-70 as shown on the Dispatch map is just begging the towns where it drops to 65 to go out and set up speed traps.
This was my thought upon seeing the Dispatch map as well, and I've always thought that the opinion that Ohio's freeways were too patrolled was a bit overblown outside of the more infamous examples we're all aware of.
I don't know, man. There's a 20-mile stretch of I-270 on the east side of Columbus where, on any given day, you can be clocked by five different agencies. It's like they all stake out their own little cut in the median.
What beltway doesn't run through a handful of suburbs in a short distance?
True, but you don't have several different agencies running radar along I-275 around Detroit or along I-294 around Chicago. Each case is just the state police, not the little podunk suburbs. That's where Ohio gets its reputation from.
It's been my experience that Ohio's state police are the problem, not local jurisdictions.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 30, 2013, 06:12:53 PM
It's been my experience that Ohio's state police are the problem, not local jurisdictions.
As a native (and current) Ohioan, you're mostly on spot. There are a few municipalities that are, shall we say, aggressive...but those aren't as common on the freeways as in other states I've been to. Usually if you're on an Ohio interstate and find someone with lights, it's a State Trooper whose lights can be really hard to see now on their white cars.
WCMH-TV reports Kasich will sign the bill tomorrow. IIRC the law takes effect 90 days after signing, and the new speed limits take effect when ODOT actually replaces the signs.
Quote from: Brandon on March 30, 2013, 05:13:53 PM
True, but you don't have several different agencies running radar along I-275 around Detroit or along I-294 around Chicago. Each case is just the state police, not the little podunk suburbs. That's where Ohio gets its reputation from.
I can't speak to the practices in Illinois or Ohio, but the state police patrols on 275 in Livonia are incredibly shady. Unmarked Dodge Chargers in a variety of colors.
Between that and the crappy drivers on that road, I just tend to skip it and use alternates unless I have business in a community immediately adjacent to the road.
US 52 between Portsmouth and the state line is very heavily patrolled. I think the four-lane is underposted, and a lot of other drivers do too, which I guess explains the heavily OHP presence.
Regarding Linndale...this oldie appeared today from WEWS (http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/news_archives/video-vault-1994-effort-to-end-linndale-speed-trap). Been down the road before with thinking that a law passed in Columbus would stop Linndale...
Nice appearance by button copy in the story. Would that the station could have gotten button-copy letters for the words superimposed. :P
Quote from: PurdueBill on April 24, 2013, 09:10:17 PM
Regarding Linndale...this oldie appeared today from WEWS (http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/news_archives/video-vault-1994-effort-to-end-linndale-speed-trap). Been down the road before with thinking that a law passed in Columbus would stop Linndale...
Nice appearance by button copy in the story. Would that the station could have gotten button-copy letters for the words superimposed. :P
Linndale wasn't the only town in Ohio to work such a scam. My wife was caught by one along the Turnpike west of Toledo back in the late '80s. I can't remember the name of the town. The officer stopped her by standing in the middle of the lane with palm outstretched, and then led her along an access road to the mayor's court. She was lucky they accepted Mastercard as payment.
Is it even legal to require payment right at the time of the traffic stop? What if you don't have the money on hand? And how do you get back on the Turnpike?
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Is it even legal to require payment right at the time of the traffic stop? What if you don't have the money on hand? And how do you get back on the Turnpike?
The whole thing by the municipality sounds dubious to me. Had I been stopped like that by a municipal cop on the Turnpike, I'd have demanded to see a state trooper immediately.
The whole operation seemed Mayberry-esque at the time. I guess they can demand payment of the fine on the spot because they had a "trial" on the spot. My wife was too intimidated by the process to raise any objection. (She was also running late to a meeting--the reason she was speeding in the first place.) I don't know what they would have done if she didn't have the cash or credit card, but I suspect they would have held her until cash was wired or brought to her.
In some countries, that's the etiquette for a bribe. Cop: "The fine is $$."
Offender: "I'm in such a hurry, couldn't I just pay you here by the side of the road, officer?"
Quote from: kkt on April 26, 2013, 04:55:13 PM
In some countries, that's the etiquette for a bribe. Cop: "The fine is $$."
Offender: "I'm in such a hurry, couldn't I just pay you here by the side of the road, officer?"
Obviously Ohio is one of those "some countries". ;-)
ODOT released a PR listing the 570 miles of Interstate that will get the 70 MPH limit effective July 1.
Link to PR (includes link to map): http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/State-Identifies-New-70-MPH-Speed-Zones.aspx
Interstate 70
- From the Indiana border in the west to just outside of Wheeling, WV in the east, excluding Dayton, Columbus and Zanesville
Interstate 71
- From the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge in southwest Ohio to just south of the border of the Cuyahoga/Medina County line in the north, excluding Columbus
Interstate 75
From just outside of Toledo going south until just north of Dayton, excluding Findlay and Lima
Interstate 76
From just outside Akron going east to just west of Youngstown
Interstate 77
From just outside of Canton south to the West Virginia border
Interstate 90
From just outside of Cleveland to the Pennsylvania border
I see Ohio is showing it's stingy colors on just how much of the 65 MPH "rural" zones get the upgrade:
- Not a single 70 MPH zone on I-271??? (come on, the first 18 miles & the Express Lanes on the other end deserve the bump!!!) :ded:
- No 70 zone on I-76 west of Akron from at least SR-21 to I-71??? :no:
- No 70 zones on non-interstate rural freeways, like SR-2 west of Cleveland, or that ghost town of a stretch of freeway in Eastern Ohio called SR-11?!?!? :banghead:
It's not like these stretches are jumping 10 or 15 MPH overnight -- plus I used to drive them at 70 MPH regularly 15-20 years ago!
But on the bright side:
"ODOT is making 317 new signs to comply with the legislation and to alert motorists to the increased speed...261 are sign pieces that will simply overlay the current 65 number with the new speed limit"
So the "uniquely-styled" Ohio 65 MPH signs will live to see another day, or year, or until the next sign replacement project. :clap:
Quote from: thenetwork on May 29, 2013, 09:10:01 PM
- No 70 zones on non-interstate rural freeways, like SR-2 west of Cleveland, or that ghost town of a stretch of freeway in Eastern Ohio called SR-11?!?!? :banghead:
Not a surprise, as the legislation only cleared Interstates for 70 MPH. But aside from that, I'll observe the increase is being applied more conservatively than I previously expected.
I'm also interested in the 55 to 60 bump on some two-lane roads. Currently, all roads with limits above 55 are 4-lane expressways or better. I presume some 4-lane divided conventional roads may be eligible for a bump to 60 as well – but not 4-lane divided expressways currently posted at 55, because apparently state law isn't a limiting factor there anyway. I'd like to see a map of these increases, but I suspect even ODOT hasn't decided where to do that yet, and it may be an incremental process when it happens.
http://news.cincinnati.com/viewart/20130605/NEWS01/306050045/More-Ohio-roads-could-see-70-mph-speed-limit
More Ohio roads could go 70 MPH - like four-lane expressways and highways.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 05, 2013, 08:06:38 AM
http://news.cincinnati.com/viewart/20130605/NEWS01/306050045/More-Ohio-roads-could-see-70-mph-speed-limit
More Ohio roads could go 70 MPH - like four-lane expressways and highways.
Nice to see at least one person with an ounce of common sense in Columbus. Either that, or someone is up for re-election in the fall and they want to get at least one roadway in their district a bump up in the speed limit!!!
Quote from: The Columbus Dispatch
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/06/05/70-mph-speed-limits-may-apply-near-cities.html
An amendment added to the state budget bill proposes raising the speed limit from 65 to 70 mph on non-interstate freeways that are built to interstate standards and on some rural four-lane divided highways.
Those could include central Ohio roadways that are much closer to Columbus than the rural interstates that will see a similar boost on July 1.
Could, but probably won't. In practice, the same urban/rural distinction will probably be made with the non-Interstate freeways as with the Interstates. I don't think it makes any sense to have US 33 through Dublin at 70 MPH but not I-70 between exits 85 and 91. But it's good to see that truly rural non-Interstate freeways like parts of US 35, OH 2, OH 11 might become eligible for 70 MPH as well.
OH-11 definitely needs a bump. I drive that road regularly, and though it is great to have a freeway there to speed up the trip north or south of the Youngstown/Warren area, if other freeways go to 70, it needs raised as well.
Two possibilities for 60mph two-lane would be US250 from US22 to Urichsville and US36. Also, US22 west of Jefferson County (Hopedale) until near I-77. Though it gets windy in places with advisory speeds for the turns and hills, it has no stop signs or lights the entire way from I-77 east until Robinson Twp, PA.
Apparently the 70 MPH signs were all put up (on the Interstates) yesterday. I drove nearly 500 miles in Ohio yesterday, but all of that was either too early or not on the right roads to see it.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/02/drivers-rush-to-go-70-mph.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dispatch.com%2Fcontent%2Fgraphics%2F2013%2F07%2F02%2Fspeed-limit-color-art0-gl2nk5vi-1speed-limit-color-2-jpg.jpg&hash=141a901864cfca6aa5db9f767c51b205ba173b99)
I actually drove right past where they put up the sign in the picture, but it was still early in the morning.
I came across a 70 MPH sign around 10 PM on June 30, which was quickly followed with a 65 MPH sign. I was jubilant and cheerful, then depressed and angry. I still went 75 MPH anyways.
Holy ****. I thought I would never see the day.
Now to get the rest of the dominoes to fall...Oregon, IL, WI and the entire Northeast (excluding Maine, which is already working on going to 75)
Got my first chance to legally cruise at 70 on a familiar road yesterday. It feels right.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on July 08, 2013, 01:03:28 PM
Holy ****. I thought I would never see the day.
Now to get the rest of the dominoes to fall...Oregon, IL, WI and the entire Northeast (excluding Maine, which is already working on going to 75)
Maine is already at 75 from north of Bangor to the Canadian border
Quote from: signalman on July 08, 2013, 06:28:11 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on July 08, 2013, 01:03:28 PM
Holy ****. I thought I would never see the day.
Now to get the rest of the dominoes to fall...Oregon, IL, WI and the entire Northeast (excluding Maine, which is already working on going to 75)
Maine is already at 75 from north of Bangor to the Canadian border
There was another proposal this year to expand that, or at least to allow for expansion (meaning it would be permitted but not required).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 07:11:57 PMThere was another proposal this year to expand that, or at least to allow for expansion (meaning it would be permitted but not required).
This is what I was referring to when I said "working on" going to 75. I knew about Bangor to Houlton.
Got a photo of a revised Ohio two-line sign today.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F70mph.jpg&hash=466ada9e5434d1c969a2c98125da3da254f4988a)
Those old signs (that once had 65 in the middle box and 55 trucks in the now-removed lower box) take a licking and keep on ticking.
I was going to post about that, but never got around to mocking up an illustration. Now we have a photo so I don't have to.
TOLLROADSnews: Ohio Turnpike raising tolls 2.7%/year for 10 years, borrowing $1 billion most for free roads (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6641)
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on July 09, 2013, 10:52:28 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 07:11:57 PMThere was another proposal this year to expand that, or at least to allow for expansion (meaning it would be permitted but not required).
This is what I was referring to when I said "working on" going to 75. I knew about Bangor to Houlton.
Yeah, I thought signalman misunderstood.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2013, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on July 09, 2013, 10:52:28 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 07:11:57 PMThere was another proposal this year to expand that, or at least to allow for expansion (meaning it would be permitted but not required).
This is what I was referring to when I said "working on" going to 75. I knew about Bangor to Houlton.
Yeah, I thought signalman misunderstood.
Yup, I did. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I do admit that I thought it was odd that a road enthusiaist was unaware of the 75 mph section in Maine. But I suppose it is possible. I know I don't necessarily stay up to date on everything that goes on road wise in sections of the country that I never or rarely travel to.
And here's the other shoe.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/Higher-Speed-Limits-May-be-Coming-to-a-Roadway-Near-You.aspx (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/Higher-Speed-Limits-May-be-Coming-to-a-Roadway-Near-You.aspx)
The gist:
- "Rural divided highways" to 60 miles per hour (194 miles of roadway)
- "Rural expressways without traffic control signals" to 65 miles per hour (15 miles of roadway)
- "Rural freeways" to 70 miles per hour (398 miles of roadway)
District-by-district listings of which roads will have increased speed limits are available on the ODOT site linked above.
There are significant chunks of SR 32 that have no traffic signals, yet it remains at 60 MPH because of the sporadic signal layout. Why not just go 60 MPH at Jackson and a few areas, and 65 MPH elsewhere?
Nice to see SR-2 west of Cleveland and SR-11 north of Youngstown getting the well-deserved boosts, but they are still being too speed-miserly in the urban areas.
It's the "urbanized areas" themselves that are out of whack. They extend far outside the edges of the suburbs.
But that doesn't account for certain sections that are left at 55 which could seemingly be raised according to the new limits.
Apparently this got sort-of extended to the part of US 30 that goes through the speed trap Dalton, as it's now marked at 55 (up from 50).
So glad to finally have 70 mph in Ohio. It ended up taking a 2.5 year, 3 part process to get it done across the board (turnpike spring 2011, interstates summer 2013, other freeways fall 2013), but we got it done.
Quote from: vtk on September 28, 2013, 06:26:59 PM
The gist:
- "Rural divided highways" to 60 miles per hour (194 miles of roadway)
- "Rural expressways without traffic control signals" to 65 miles per hour (15 miles of roadway)
- "Rural freeways" to 70 miles per hour (398 miles of roadway)
The part about 65 mph rural expressways is interesting because a lot of those were already 65 (parts US 30, US 23, US 24.) I wonder if those sections were some sort of exception to how the prior law was written, and this new language is to make those exceptions the state wide rule? Or maybe the previous language wasn't very clear on speeds for freeways vs expressways and this was to give a statewide uniform definition and make it clear that those expressways were not to be 70?
Anyway, in the end only 15 miles of expressway changed to 65, a good chunk of that being the US 20 bypass around Fremont, which jumped all the way up from 55 and is one at grade intersection shy of being a full freeway.
And seeing the divided highways jump to 60 is another very welcome change, because a rural 4 lane divided highway having the same speed limit as a 2 lane road always seemed like a waste to me. Nice to see (according to the ODOT maps) that a large portion of US 23's 55 zones made the jump, including the quad-carriage test area between Waldo and Delaware which really needed it, and several large chunks between Columbus and Portsmouth. Too bad the part south of Delaware is still the same old pain in the butt, but at least a small section of 36/37 between Delaware and 71 is now 60 for those who prefer that route. And of course I also love having US 20 at 60 mph.
Quote from: thenetwork on September 29, 2013, 06:54:38 PM
Nice to see SR-2 west of Cleveland and SR-11 north of Youngstown getting the well-deserved boosts, but they are still being too speed-miserly in the urban areas.
Yep, love seeing Route 2 get the bump, though for whatever reason it goes back to 65 at Bay View. Not sure if it's because they didn't want the 70 mph speed limit on the Sanduksy Bay Bridge or if they think that the Ottawa County section is too congested with tourst traffic in the summer, or maybe a little of both.
Quote from: Buck87 on October 15, 2013, 01:21:23 PM
The part about 65 mph rural expressways is interesting because a lot of those were already 65 (parts US 30, US 23, US 24.) I wonder if those sections were some sort of exception to how the prior law was written, and this new language is to make those exceptions the state wide rule? Or maybe the previous language wasn't very clear on speeds for freeways vs expressways and this was to give a statewide uniform definition and make it clear that those expressways were not to be 70?
As I saw this past weekend, an upshot of the "new" limits even on stretches that didn't change in limit for cars is that the split limits have disappeared in places. For example, US 30 from the Indiana line to just west of Bucyrus had been 65/55, is now just 65. From Bucyrus to Ontario there are no intersections so it's 70, then down to 55 through Mansfield and 60 east of there for a ways over to Wooster. The split limit signs going away resulted in some tall-looking assemblies with normal signs where a very tall one used to be, but it sure makes things a lot simpler.
^
Ah yes, that was another good part of this most recent speed law. Most of the articles I read about the speed going up made it sound like the dual speeds were to be completely removed as well.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2013, 10:24:55 PM
The article also says rural two lanes roads could be posted at 60.
And the law was indeed changed to allow it, here's what it says:
"(H) (2) Whenever the director determines upon the basis of a geometric and traffic characteristic study that the speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour on a two-lane state route outside a municipal corporation is less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at that portion of the state route, the director may determine and declare a speed limit of sixty miles per hour for that portion of the state route, which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice of it are erected at the location."
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.21
However, it's been months since that became law and I don't know of any place that's actually enacted it yet. My guess is that this law was put on the books with super two's in mind (like the Athens-Darwin and Pomeroy-Ravenswood sections of US 33)
315 is still 65/55 in Columbus. I wonder if that's the city's preference or what...
Quote from: Buck87 on October 15, 2013, 01:21:23 PM
Anyway, in the end only 15 miles of expressway changed to 65, a good chunk of that being the US 20 bypass around Fremont, which jumped all the way up from 55 and is one at grade intersection shy of being a full freeway.
Is it just me, or is it kind of strange that while the US-20 Fremont Bypass is going to 65, the fully limited access Norwalk Bypass is just going to 60? Weird....
It is, since I recall ALWAYS seeing more traffic on US-20 in Fremont versus US-20 in Norwalk.
Agreed on it being weird and there being more traffic in Fremont vs Norwalk. Plus, Fremont's bypass has several loop off ramps with suggested speeds of 25 and 30, while Norwalk's has none like that.
I was on the Fremont bypass yesterday, and saw that the 65 zone doesn't begin until after the at grade intersection between State Street and OH 412, and then drops back to 60 about halfway between OH 19 and the US 20/US 6 split. That means the 65 zone lasts for only 5 miles, which is the same amount of freeway that Norwalk has, so it's not like the Norwalk stretch is too short to be 65.
Quote from: thenetwork on October 19, 2013, 01:30:11 PM
It is, since I recall ALWAYS seeing more traffic on US-20 in Fremont versus US-20 in Norwalk.
True. Fremont has more east-west traffic using US-20. Norwalk has more north-south traffic with US-250 (which was originally planned to be routed onto the eastern end of the US 20 bypass with a northerly extension to Milan/Ohio Turnpike).
http://goo.gl/maps/0lD43
That 250 bypass extension always been interesting "what if" for me. Do you know what stopped the rest of it from being built? When was the last time there was any talk or studies about finishing it?
Sorry for the off-topic, but why does US 23 explode into eight lanes between Delaware and Waldo? Are they planning to convert 23 into a freeway?
I've always done around 60 on US 23. 33 between Pomeroy and Columbus would be great at 60-65.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 21, 2013, 03:36:24 PM
Sorry for the off-topic, but why does US 23 explode into eight lanes between Delaware and Waldo? Are they planning to convert 23 into a freeway?
The middle carriageways are used for testing different kinds of pavement. The outer ones are used to carry mainline traffic when work is being done on the test sections, but mainly serve as frontage roads to the farms and businesses there. As far as converting it to freeway goes, I believe I saw a post somewhere on here that showed that either MORP or ODOT had that listed on their long range plan.
Quote33 between Pomeroy and Columbus would be great at 60-65.
According to the ODOT speed change maps, 33 is:
55 from WV to OH 7
60 around Pomeroy and up to Darwin
55 from Darwin to and through Athens/The Plains
70 on the Nelsonville and Logan bypasses
60 through Rockbridge to Sugar Grove
70 on the Lancaster bypass
60 from Carroll to Columbus
Quote from: Buck87 on October 21, 2013, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 21, 2013, 03:36:24 PM
Sorry for the off-topic, but why does US 23 explode into eight lanes between Delaware and Waldo? Are they planning to convert 23 into a freeway?
The middle carriageways are used for testing different kinds of pavement. The outer ones are used to carry mainline traffic when work is being done on the test sections, but mainly serve as frontage roads to the farms and businesses there. As far as converting it to freeway goes, I believe I saw a post somewhere on here that showed that either MORP or ODOT had that listed on their long range plan.
MORPC was considering it for inclusion in its most recent long-range plan, but then did not include it.
It'd make more sense to me to have the speed limit set at an average rate (outside the urban areas) on 33. 65 would seem to be reasonable between Columbus and Logan/Nelsonville.
Quote from: Buck87 on October 21, 2013, 02:15:13 PM
That 250 bypass extension always been interesting "what if" for me. Do you know what stopped the rest of it from being built? When was the last time there was any talk or studies about finishing it?
One plausible reason: US-250 snakes through Norwalk, and about 80% of all the town's business is along that route (there is very little business along the US-20/SR-18 bypass, or even along SR-61 which still goes east-west through town. They get a lot of Cedar Point Traffic in the summer, and completing the bypass to connect with the existing 4-lanes of US-250 just south of Milan would severely hurt a lot of the businesses' profits.
In a sense, Norwalk is almost like a Breezewood in between two free-flowing sections of US-250 on either side.
It looks like someone at ODOT statewide or District 6 office decided it was silly to have the 65/70 transition exactly where the freeway crosses some arbitrary "urbanized area" boundary regardless of the conditions of the highway itself. The 70 MPH zones on I-70 and I-71 have very recently been extended towards Columbus to about ¾ mile shy of the first interchange in the "urbanized" zone. I-71's transition north of town is now just north of Gemini Pkwy, and south of town it's just south of OH 665, though when I observed on Monday the change was incomplete, with a 65 MPH sign remaining on 71 NB just past 62. I-70's transition on the west side is now just west of Hilliard—Rome Rd (and I've calculated this should decrease travel time by 17 seconds); I have not observed I-70 on the east side recently.
Ok yeah, I was heading out to London yesterday and thought I saw that but couldn't be sure. Common sense is a scary thing sometimes!
Quote from: vtk on July 22, 2015, 11:22:03 PM
It looks like someone at ODOT statewide or District 6 office decided it was silly to have the 65/70 transition exactly where the freeway crosses some arbitrary "urbanized area" boundary regardless of the conditions of the highway itself. The 70 MPH zones on I-70 and I-71 have very recently been extended towards Columbus to about ¾ mile shy of the first interchange in the "urbanized" zone. I-71's transition north of town is now just north of Gemini Pkwy, and south of town it's just south of OH 665, though when I observed on Monday the change was incomplete, with a 65 MPH sign remaining on 71 NB just past 62. I-70's transition on the west side is now just west of Hilliard—Rome Rd (and I've calculated this should decrease travel time by 17 seconds); I have not observed I-70 on the east side recently.
I-70 E on the East Side between Downtown and Alum Creek Dr. actually got lowered to 55 around 2011 because semis kept bashing through the Jersey barriers on the Livingston Curve and falling into people's yards. They replaced the Jersey barriers with taller Single Plane at the same time.
I can't wait (if it happens) for I-271 and I-480 to go above 60 MPH. Woefully underposted.