Interstate Speed Limit Compact

Started by brycecordry, January 17, 2016, 02:40:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

1995hoo

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 11:36:56 PM
The liquor issue is more complicated than just interstate commerce because of the 21st Amendment giving states particular authority they might not otherwise have.

That was a probably a bad example. I just picked liquor because people often go to NH for that since it's cheaper. If I go to New Hampshire, buy the new Madden video game and bring it back to Maine then I've engage in interstate commerce.

Still "interstate commerce" is such a vague term that Congress could pass a wide array of bills and claim that it derived its power to do so from the commerce clause.

Indeed Congress does do exactly that!
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.


Pete from Boston

This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards.  There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.

leroys73

Although I do agree that speed limit changes at the state line are a pain in my a.. when they reduce but we don't need more federal control.  I have to revert to states setting their own speed limits.   

Advanced warning of speed limit change would be nice. I think one big improvement would be for each state to not only post their seat belt law also post their helmet law for motorcyclists.  I always wear a helmet but many riders don't.
'73 Vette, '72 Monte Carlo, ;11 Green with Envy Challenger R/T,Ram, RoyalStarVenture S,USA Honda VTX1300R ridden 49states &11provinces,Driven cars in50 states+DC&21countries,OverseasBrats;IronButt:MileEatersilver,SS1000Gold,SS3000,3xSS2000,18xSS1000, 3TX1000,6BB1500,NPT,LakeSuperiorCircleTour

The Nature Boy

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line.  Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.

That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.

Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.

1995hoo

It bears noting the old national speed limit (and the 21 drinking age) was not premised on the Commerce Clause–it was premised on the Spending Clause. Essentially Congress said "if you post a limit over 55, you lose federal highway funds." The courts upheld it because no state has a right to receive federal highway funds.

The wrinkle is that the condition Congress imposes must itself be constitutional. They can't say, for example, "make Islam the only legal religion or you lose highway funds," or "don't allow blacks to vote or you lose highway funds."
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 18, 2016, 02:51:10 PM
It bears noting the old national speed limit (and the 21 drinking age) was not premised on the Commerce Clause–it was premised on the Spending Clause. Essentially Congress said "if you post a limit over 55, you lose federal highway funds." The courts upheld it because no state has a right to receive federal highway funds.

The wrinkle is that the condition Congress imposes must itself be constitutional. They can't say, for example, "make Islam the only legal religion or you lose highway funds," or "don't allow blacks to vote or you lose highway funds."

I wonder how different both of those things would be if passed today. It seems like in the 90s at least, courts became more lenient on letting things slide under the commerce clause argument.

hbelkins

In my experience, states are pretty good about posting their laws and speed limit reductions at or near state lines. North Carolina's signs always stood out for me because of their terminology that motorcyclists must burn their headlights (instead of use headlights or turn on headlights).

And if the feds can set speed limits for interstates since they paid for 90 percent of the cost, does that also mean they should get to set the limits on the ARC corridors or any other roads which received federal aid?
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

1995hoo

Heh. Those North Carolina "burn headlights" signs always stood out to me too.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2016, 04:11:04 PM
In my experience, states are pretty good about posting their laws and speed limit reductions at or near state lines. North Carolina's signs always stood out for me because of their terminology that motorcyclists must burn their headlights (instead of use headlights or turn on headlights).

And if the feds can set speed limits for interstates since they paid for 90 percent of the cost, does that also mean they should get to set the limits on the ARC corridors or any other roads which received federal aid?

Back when the speed limit dropped from 70 to 65 on I-95 coming from SC to NC, I don't recall there being a sign. Of course the monstrosity that is South of the Border may have distracted me from seeing it if it was there.

brycecordry

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 02:13:38 PM
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards.  There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.

These standards are meant to be just that. Substandard routes would in turn warrant a substandard speed limit, and above-standard routes would get an above-standard speed limit. The only gain it would give is eliminating speed changes for merely "crossing an imaginary line", reserving those instead for changes in the actual road geometry.

I find that many people drive what is a safe speed, and those that actually drive the speed limit (like I do) are usually passed left and right with slower limits. Several states (such as Michigan) have been talking about an "85th Percentile" speed, and from what I have found, these standard limits are a good generalization (since laws are always black-and-white like that).
A freeway is a freeway. We could cheaply build many new Interstates if it weren't for the nitty-gritty intricacy of Interstate Standards.

Joe The Dragon

Quote from: wxfree on January 17, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Speaking from Texas, I'm not a fan of this idea.  We have two-lane highways with no shoulders with speed limits of 75.  If there's a long sight distance and little traffic (the kind of road we have a lot of), 75 is just fine.  Many narrow farm to market roads have speed limits of 60, which is higher than the proposed limit but still unreasonably slow in many places.

A straight, flat rural two-lane highway with miles of visibility and almost no traffic or intersecting roads is very different than a curvy, hilly rural two-lane highway with restricted visibility and heavy traffic and lots of intersections.  No single speed limit is suitable for both.

I think a better approach is for all of the states to set reasonable speed limits.  This is based on conditions and not uniform numbers.  There's no reason for a speed limit of 75 in Texas to reduce to 65 in Oklahoma on the same road with the same conditions.  If both states set reasonable limits, there may still be changes at state lines when the road is designed differently, but not because of imaginary lines.  Speed limits would still generally vary by region, but that's entirely appropriate because of topography, visibility, development, and traffic density.

The idea might work on a regional scale, especially in small states where state lines are crossed frequently and conditions are substantially similar in different states (such as New England) or where a highway cuts corners of different states and there's no reason to have different speed limits in each one.  If we could, somehow, get all of the states to agree to a national agreement, it should be even easier to get them to agree to set more reasonable limits based on the different conditions that exist.  That seems to be slowly happening on its own, with speed limits rising here and there.

One thing I'd like to see is separation of establishing and enforcing speed limits.  A city or county should not have unlimited discretion to set speed limits and collect fines for violations.  State highway speed limits should be set by the state, by a department that does not receive traffic fine money.  Local road speed limits should be set in a way that's relatively uniform, with good reason needed for any that are abnormally low.

also work zone that don't have very low limits.

Like long work zones with no one working

45 work zones in areas where the works are walled off

24/7 low limits on high speed roads

work zone limits for very minor work

work zones where a 70-65 drops to 45.

AlexandriaVA

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.

If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.

I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong–maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).

I feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".

My solution? A federal bureau charged with management and regulation of all Interstate Highways. And federal agents performing highway patrol. No local or state police beholden to local interests. These are federal roads, paid for by federal taxpayers for the national-interest.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line.  Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.

That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.

Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.

Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.

Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?

1995hoo

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2016, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.

If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.

I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong–maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).

I feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".

My solution? A federal bureau charged with management and regulation of all Interstate Highways. And federal agents performing highway patrol. No local or state police beholden to local interests. These are federal roads, paid for by federal taxpayers for the national-interest.

I was going to reply to this, but I suspect it would veer too far into the sorts of political discussion the moderators ask us to avoid. Let's just say I do not share your enthusiasm for aggregating more and more power in the federal government and leave it at that.

"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

The Nature Boy

#39
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line.  Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.

That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.

Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.

Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.

Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?

Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 19, 2016, 07:34:49 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2016, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2016, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 17, 2016, 08:46:00 PM
When states pay for the interstate, they can set the rules. Fed government gets 90% say for all I'm concerned.

If the states think that the federal government is too overbearing, they're welcome to buy out the original 90% federal costs (plus interest). Doubt we'll see any takers.

I would find your argument more convincing had the feds tried to dictate speed limits from the very beginning of the Interstate system. They didn't. Coming along 20 years later and saying "we paid most of the cost, so we get to make the rules" strikes me as wrong—maybe not wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but wrong in the sense of being the wrong thing to do. Congress is utterly unqualified to tell any state how to set speed limits (and I firmly believe the correct question is not "what should the speed limit be" but rather "how should speed limits be set," because I think the idea of "the speed limit" is a bad idea because I don't think it's normally appropriate, even in a single state, for all roads of a particular class to be assigned a particular number just because of the shape of the shield).

I feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".

My solution? A federal bureau charged with management and regulation of all Interstate Highways. And federal agents performing highway patrol. No local or state police beholden to local interests. These are federal roads, paid for by federal taxpayers for the national-interest.

I was going to reply to this, but I suspect it would veer too far into the sorts of political discussion the moderators ask us to avoid. Let's just say I do not share your enthusiasm for aggregating more and more power in the federal government and leave it at that.



I'm not a fan of it either. However, the National Park Police have primary jurisdiction on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, right?

jeffandnicole

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line.  Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.

That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.

Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.

Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.

Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?

Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."

So they'll just post a lower limit a half-mile prior to the state line.  Seems way more sensible than creating an entire "Interstate Speed Limit Compact".

The Nature Boy

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line.  Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.

That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.

Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.

Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.

Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?

Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."

So they'll just post a lower limit a half-mile prior to the state line.  Seems way more sensible than creating an entire "Interstate Speed Limit Compact".

Yeah, I never advocated for that level of federal intrusion. As a traveler, I just want to be aware of speed limit drops so I don't have to deal with a state trooper with a love of writing tickets.

cl94

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:49:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:46:58 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 19, 2016, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 18, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
And further still, interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with having a speed limit the same on both sides of a state line.  Might as well buy some apples and be charged the price of oranges, because they're both fruit.

That may be true but as 1995hoo has also said, Congress stretches the limits of it to get what they want. Read Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Lopez if you want good examples of how the commerce power is sometimes abused.

Since this deals with a vehicle traveling across state lines, Congress would have little difficulty finding the authority to enact this legislation.

Well, it could go both ways. Obviously, some here want the state with the lower limit to have their limit raised. Laws or rules could just as easily be passed requiring the state with the higher limit to reduce theirs.

Btw, what is the appropriate distance before a state could reduce...or raise...a limit?

Half a mile past the state line with clear signage of the lower limit. I used to see state troopers on the NC/SC line on I-95 waiting to bust people crossing from SC who didn't notice the lower NC limit so it would have to be something that discourages that kind of behavior. I'm not calling for the return to national speed limits but rather something that keeps states from lowering speed limits at the state line, busting drivers and saying "lol sorry."

So they'll just post a lower limit a half-mile prior to the state line.  Seems way more sensible than creating an entire "Interstate Speed Limit Compact".

Yeah, I never advocated for that level of federal intrusion. As a traveler, I just want to be aware of speed limit drops so I don't have to deal with a state trooper with a love of writing tickets.

A lot of states already do. IIRC, Ohio posted signs on I-90 at the PA border warning of the drop, for example. Drops at state lines are rarely more than 5 mph, anyway, unless you're entering an urban area at the same time.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Pete from Boston

#43
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 18, 2016, 11:03:34 PMI feel like your logic would imply that states should regulate and manage the air traffic schemes within their 'territorial' airspace. Or that each state could have their own telephony standards. Again, on the basis that they "know better".

I'm also going to steer clear of the inflammatory political part of this, only to mention that, practically speaking, a road functions a lot more discretely than airspace (but you knew that).  The implications for differing regulations on a road between states, coordinated within reason, can differ with far less serious impact than that of 80-ton missiles in a (literally) nebulous zone traveling the width of some states in five minutes. 

Uniform standards without which interoperability is rendered impractical or impossible are managed by the federal government.  The federal government has done this with regard to speed limit by setting guidelines.  Choosing where within those guidelines to set limits is not critical to interoperability.

doorknob60

Quote from: cl94 on January 19, 2016, 11:33:58 AM

A lot of states already do. IIRC, Ohio posted signs on I-90 at the PA border warning of the drop, for example. Drops at state lines are rarely more than 5 mph, anyway, unless you're entering an urban area at the same time.

Tell that to Oregon. Driving from Idaho into Oregon on I-84 is a 15 MPH drop (from 80 to 65).  This will soon be reduced to 10 (80 to 70) but still a big difference.

kkt

I don't think we need an interstate compact.  Most states are pretty good about signing speed limits and I'd rather not go looking for problems to solve.  Isn't there a rule already about posting a speed limit drop ahead sign and then a speed limit sign where it actually drops?

And I'm definitely against blanket speed limits applied without considering local circumstances.  Engineering of the road, what animals enter the roadway, visibility, kinds of driver and vehicle, condition of the road, tendency toward avalanches, rockfalls, and landslides, increase in accidents at a particular location, etc.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: kkt on January 19, 2016, 03:36:50 PM
...Isn't there a rule already about posting a speed limit drop ahead sign and then a speed limit sign where it actually drops?

Amazingly, the answer is: Not Always.

Quote
Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), Standard: 09

A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5 or W3-5a) sign (see Section 2C.38) should be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead.

And remember: should does not equal shall.  Thus, even a significant drop in limit doesn't absolutely require a reduced speed ahead sign.  That said, the cases where a speed limit drop of 10 or more is not signed in advance is fairly rare.  And of the instances I'm aware of, some are near, but none are at, a state line.  Although, they do tend to be near where the jurisdiction changes, say from state to bi-state authority.  It's equally rare to see a cop near the any of these limit reductions, and the tolerances tend to be pretty high.

oscar

#47
Quote from: brycecordry on January 18, 2016, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 02:13:38 PM
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards.  There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.

These standards are meant to be just that. Substandard routes would in turn warrant a substandard speed limit, and above-standard routes would get an above-standard speed limit. The only gain it would give is eliminating speed changes for merely "crossing an imaginary line", reserving those instead for changes in the actual road geometry.

So who decides whether differences in road conditions warrant above- or below-standard speed limits? If each state gets to decide on its own, the "standard" will be easily blown off and end up having little meaning. If someone else decides, who, and how much cost and aggravation gets added to the speed limit setting process? 

Far more practical is the proposal downthread to require only that border speed limit reductions take effect a half-mile inside the border, with notice of the reduction posted at the border.

I'm also bothered by what seems to me overconcern about "eliminating speed changes for merely 'crossing an imaginary line'". I have most likely crossed many more borders than you, from extensive travel throughout North America. I've also encountered some fairly major speed limit changes at borders, such as from 75 to 55 on a two-lane US highway crossing from Texas into New Mexico, and at international borders between mph and km/h (not always equal on both sides of the border, after you do the conversion). None of this bothered me in the least. I just counted that as states or other jurisdictions doing things differently, with the differences usually not objectively unreasonable (though my preference is almost always for higher limits).

There are a lot of road-related things states, etc. do differently, even with MUTCD and similar requirements encouraging uniformity (such as on sign and signal design) where it is most critical. Those differences are frequently discussed on this forum, and are part of what makes this hobby interesting.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

cl94

Quote from: oscar on January 19, 2016, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: brycecordry on January 18, 2016, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2016, 02:13:38 PM
This assumes too much about the consistency of road standards.  There is a lot of unresolvable old road geometry in the Northeast (until you propose the Interstate Neighborhood Demolition Compact) that precludes a 65 mph speed limit.

These standards are meant to be just that. Substandard routes would in turn warrant a substandard speed limit, and above-standard routes would get an above-standard speed limit. The only gain it would give is eliminating speed changes for merely "crossing an imaginary line", reserving those instead for changes in the actual road geometry.

So who decides whether differences in road conditions warrant above- or below-standard speed limits? If each state gets to decide on its own, the "standard" will be easily blown off and end up having little meaning. If someone else decides, who, and how much cost and aggravation gets added to the speed limit setting process? 

Far more practical is the proposal downthread to require only that border speed limit reductions take effect a half-mile inside the border, with notice of the reduction posted at the border.

I'm also bothered by what seems to me overconcern about "eliminating speed changes for merely 'crossing an imaginary line'". I have most likely crossed many more borders than you, from extensive travel throughout North America. I've also encountered some fairly major speed limit changes at borders, such as from 75 to 55 on a two-lane US highway crossing from Texas into New Mexico, and at international borders between mph and km/h (not always equal on both sides of the border, after you do the conversion). None of this bothered me in the least. I just counted that as states or other jurisdictions doing things differently, with the differences usually not objectively unreasonable (though my preference is almost always for higher limits).

There are a lot of road-related things states, etc. do differently, even with MUTCD and similar requirements encouraging uniformity (such as on sign and signal design) where it is most critical. Those differences are frequently discussed on this forum, and are part of what makes this hobby interesting.

A lot of the issues people have could be rectified by making the W3-5 mandatory. I'd also make "begin" signage mandatory (or at least optional) at a speed limit change, as is the case in Ontario and is becoming common in New York on expressways (R3-9cP mounded over speed limit sign) for limit increases. This way, there would be at least two special signs indicating a decrease and one for an increase.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

slorydn1

I love the W3-5 signs. I never saw my first one until my 2011 trip to El Paso to visit my son at Fort Bliss. I first saw them on I-30 (?) in Texas and I was like wow, that's nice to have. After that they started sprouting up all over the place. Now here in NC I can't remember the last speed limit change on a highway that isn't preceded by them, or at the very least the old white text "Reduced Speed Ahead" sign. 

All of that said, I never had a problem before then, especially at state lines. That big colorful "Welcome to <insert state name here>, Joe Dirtbag, Governor" is a big , honking advertisement for the concept of new state, new rules.  I intuitively scan for a speed limit sign immediately upon seeing that welcome sign. My non-roadgeek wife is the same way. I guess I just can't understand how people can plow past the state line and not expect at least the possibility that the speed limit might be different (faster or slower) than what it was for the last few hundred miles.


Making states move the speed limit change to a location inside the state (1/2 mile, mile, 5 miles, whatever) is literally just kicking that can down the road to an even more imaginary line than what the state line denotes. In fact, it might not even be possible to do that without legislation to raise the maximum allowed speed limit in the state, in some cases.

Maybe the states should work together so that "State A" puts up W3-5's to denote the lowered speed limit at the state line ahead in "State B" instead of moving the imaginary line further down the road. I see that is being currently done in a few places.
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.