Michigan Looking @ 80 MPH

[thenetwork]

Move over, Texas.  Looks like the home of the automobile wants to raise their speed limits to 80 MPH. 


http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130823/METRO05/308230058/1361/Lawmakers-look-at-raising-speed-limits-to-80-mph-in-Michigan

[roadman65]

I find this hard to believe as the speed limit is 55 mph on the expressway part of US 127 north of St. Johns where other states at least allow 60 mph on non freeway divided highways.  I heard rumors it has been changed, though, but it was allowed for many years.

[Brandon]

Hell, they treat the freeways as the "Michibahn" in Detroit already.  80 mph would just be somewhat close to the flow speed on the Jeffries (I-96).

[roadman65]

Georgia is known for its "southern cops" and yet Atlanta has 80 mph on its freeways as well.  Cities are far different from the states they are in.

[pianocello]

I find this hard to believe as the speed limit is 55 mph on the expressway part of US 127 north of St. Johns where other states at least allow 60 mph on non freeway divided highways.  I heard rumors it has been changed, though, but it was allowed for many years.

It's 65 now.

Anyway, MDoT should increase eliminate the truck speed limit before they increase the car speed limit.

[Henry]

I say go for it!

[31E]

It's about time Michigan followed the lead of Texas and Utah. Bring on 80 mph!

[Brandon]

Here's the story with more information from the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan lawmakers investigate increasing some speed limits

The proposal has initial support from the State Police, which – along with the Michigan Department of Transportation and county road commissions – is responsible for setting speed limits on state highways and interstates in Michigan.

Lt. Gary Megge of the State Police's traffic services section said most posted speed limits across Michigan are "artificially low"  and don't reflect reasonable traffic patterns. In some cases, that makes roadways more dangerous, he said.

He pointed to metro Detroit freeways where the posted limit is 55 m.p.h. but the majority of drivers are traveling about 70 m.p.h.

"If they set their cruise control on 55 m.p.h., we're truly forcing those people to be some of the most hazardous on the road,"  Megge said. "They may not be hazardous, but because everyone else is going faster – they're causing chaos."

Sanity.

[JREwing78]

Michigan has been pretty sane about speed limits for a while now, the truck speed limit excepted. And frankly, slow trucks are the bane of my existence every time I drive I-94 across southern Michigan.

I don't see a problem with most freeways going to 75 or 80, particularly if the truck limit is raised to match. I highly doubt they would post above 70mph in urban areas, but there's plenty of stretches that could do it.

What I would love to see are higher-grade 2-lanes like US-2, M-28, or M-115 being bumped up to 60 or 65 as a result of this bill.

[Alps]

I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.

[Brandon]

I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.

How often have you driven there?  I've been caught in more than a few heavy traffic flows moving along at 80-85 around Metro Detroit.  There may be more than a few surprises when the 85th percentile data comes back.

[ET21]

I can't see 80 in Michigan. Too much traffic on the relatively few freeways. 75 max, to me.

Least for me, I-196 and US 131 are pretty wide open. The only congested area where I wouldn't do 80 is entering and leaving Grand Rapids

[SP Cook]

Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.

[thenetwork]

80 MPH in Michigan, especially in the I-94 Detroit-Chicago corridor is a no brainer. 

I remember my college days in which I took the "Free" way from Toledo to Chicago via I-94, and I couldn't even tell you how fast I was going for two straight hours -- I drove a 1983 Nissan Sentra with a speedometer which would "peg" at 85 MPH!!!   

[nwi_navigator_1181]

I'd be down with Michigan carrying 80 mph speed limits. The only portion I'd leave alone is the immediate downtown section of Grand Rapids. Otherwise, game on!

[Alps]

Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.

Are you correcting for background improvements in safety when comparing the effect of an SL rise? I would be willing to agree that crashes don't rise when SLs rise, but I have a harder time believing they fall.

[Brandon]

Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.

Are you correcting for background improvements in safety when comparing the effect of an SL rise? I would be willing to agree that crashes don't rise when SLs rise, but I have a harder time believing they fall.

Look at it this way.  With a speed limit increase on the freeways, you are driving traffic to the safest roads we have and away from roads with many intersections where most accidents, and the majority of fatal accidents occur.  That's why they can fall with a speed limit increase.

[JREwing78]

Mike Thompson from the Detroit Free Press had a hilarious cartoon on the subject, referencing another big highway debate in Lansing. http://www.freep.com/article/20130826/BLOG24/130825002/Michigan-speed-limit-autos

[Brandon]

Mike Thompson from the Detroit Free Press had a hilarious cartoon on the subject, referencing another big highway debate in Lansing. http://www.freep.com/article/20130826/BLOG24/130825002/Michigan-speed-limit-autos

Funny thing is, I've noticed Michiganders seem to have a very high standard for a road surface.  What's considered potholed there is considered fully drivable in Illinois.

[JREwing78]

Mike Thompson from the Detroit Free Press had a hilarious cartoon on the subject, referencing another big highway debate in Lansing. http://www.freep.com/article/20130826/BLOG24/130825002/Michigan-speed-limit-autos

Funny thing is, I've noticed Michiganders seem to have a very high standard for a road surface.  What's considered potholed there is considered fully drivable in Illinois.

The state highways are generally very well maintained in Michigan. The county roads and city streets? Not so much. This is the state that turned paved primary roads back to gravel before Texas made the news for it.

[Alps]

Since every increase in SLs has been accompanied by both a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity (because underposted SLs cause, rather than prevent these things) and a decrease in crime (as limited police resources are devoted to serious useful work) an 80 MPH SL would be a great start.

Are you correcting for background improvements in safety when comparing the effect of an SL rise? I would be willing to agree that crashes don't rise when SLs rise, but I have a harder time believing they fall.

Look at it this way.  With a speed limit increase on the freeways, you are driving traffic to the safest roads we have and away from roads with many intersections where most accidents, and the majority of fatal accidents occur.  That's why they can fall with a speed limit increase.

To a point. 55 to 65 or 70? Absolutely. 70 to 80? You're really not diverting much traffic at that point. The freeway is already faster enough.

[getemngo]

A few thoughts (I'm not quoting anyone, because I'd have to put half the thread in here)...

-US 127 from St. Johns to Ithaca is not the only non-freeway that's faster than 55. US 2/US 41 from Gladstone to their split in Rapid River is a 65 mph expressway. The expressway portion of M-53 is 70, though MDOT stupidly reduces it to 55 for every single intersection. That said, I agree that MDOT needs to be more flexible about this and start applying it to two-lane roads as well. Maybe keep divided expressways/surface roads to 70 and high quality two-lane highways to 65?

-Will be interesting to see what MDOT keeps at 70 or lower if this passes. There is a precedent for this, since I-96 stayed at 65 through the US 131 interchange and Grand River bridge for quite a few years. I must be a wimp, because I think 70 for US 131 in downtown Grand Rapids is already too high (at least from Leonard to Wealthy), and 70 for I-496 in downtown Lansing is borderline.

-The truck speed limit was raised from 55 to 60 a few years ago... but I see a fair number of trucks (not all) going 65-67. Most aren't going to drive faster than this no matter what, either because they have speed governors or to save fuel. Trucks are annoying everywhere. Do you guys really think removing the truck speed limit will change much?

-Would construction zones still have "When Workers Present 45", or would it get bumped up?

[renegade]

  ... I just don't have a good feeling about this.  The condition of some stretches of freeway here is absolutely atrocious. I could see 75 mph as reality on highways north of, say, US-10.  But downstate?  WAY too much traffic.  Besides, they have GOT to do something about the damn frost heaves.  Much of southbound US-23 from Fenton to the M-14 west triple-decker at Ann Arbor is like having speed bumps every hundred feet or so.  I'm not comfortable hitting those at 80 mph.  They can leave the speed limit at 70 mph on the freeways.  What they NEED to do is follow state law and re-examine speed limits on the secondary and local roads, as well as fix the timing of traffic lights so traffic can move more smoothly. 



I spend more time thinking about shit like this than I should.  I have plenty of time, being stuck in Ann Arbor traffic every day.

[texaskdog]

Most roads can handle it.  Texas has 85 and that's with our awful drivers.

[Brandon]

Reform Michigan's speed limit laws (Detroit News)

Highway engineering studies show that the safest roads are those where speed limits are set at the rate at which 85 percent of motorists travel, thus reducing speed differentials and the likelihood of rear-end crashes and side swipes. But due to political initiatives to increase ticket revenue, save gas and reduce speeds, politicians have for too long set artificially low speed limits.

"Politicians should never set speed limits,"  says Jones, whose bill will close a loophole in a 2006 law requiring road agencies to set speed limits based on traffic studies. "That's how you get speed traps. It should be done scientifically by the Michigan State Police or the police in areas where a study is done."

Jones' primary concern is revenue-raising speed traps that unfairly target drivers, which is why the Michigan Municipal League opposes his efforts.

You don't say.  They make money that way, and Jones, rightly, is proposing real speed limits, not speed trap crap.

"With artificially low speed limits we put police in a position of actually ticketing safe drivers. I want to see drivers traveling within a 10-mph band of one another,"  says Lt. Gary Megge of State Police Traffic Services, who advocates the 85th percentile rule, adding that fewer speed traps means officers will have more time to devote to bigger safety issues like intoxicated and distracted driving.

Our Eisenhower-built interstate highway system was designed for 85-mph travel in 1950s-era cars. By setting more rational limits that reduce travel time on interstates, road engineers also find that traffic is drawn away from narrower, more dangerous secondary roads.

Exactly.  Use the cops to look for the real dangers, not someone driving an interstate at 80-85.