Illinois may increase speed limit 70

[froggie]

and the whole drop in speed only yielded a savings of 0.1%.

Are you referring to pre-/post-change studies in Houston?  Or cars in general?

Because if it's the latter, it's more than that.  My difference between 75 MPH and 55 MPH is closer to 8-10% (typcally a 3 MPG increase), and I drive a 2006 Corolla.

[iwishiwascanadian]

^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century.  For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.

I agree.  When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65.  I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury).  When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic. 

[Alps]

^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century.  For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.

I agree.  When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65.  I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury).  When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic. 

You can't say these things until you've traveled the road more than once.  I-84 should be nowhere near 75 in Connecticut, not to mention it really can't move above 50 most times.  The NJ Turnpike is designed for 75-80 mph or higher, but it has such a high truck mix that fatal accidents will skyrocket for every 5 mph you add.  And we've discussed split limits before, and they're less desirable than just keeping everyone at 65.  Same issue with I-95 in MD - fewer trucks, by a long shot, but then again you have four lanes in each direction, which gives you more weaving and certainly more traffic in general, thus conducive to lower speeds.  There's a reason the Northeast moves slower!

[iwishiwascanadian]

^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century.  For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.

I agree.  When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65.  I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury).  When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic.  

You can't say these things until you've traveled the road more than once.  I-84 should be nowhere near 75 in Connecticut, not to mention it really can't move above 50 most times.  The NJ Turnpike is designed for 75-80 mph or higher, but it has such a high truck mix that fatal accidents will skyrocket for every 5 mph you add.  And we've discussed split limits before, and they're less desirable than just keeping everyone at 65.  Same issue with I-95 in MD - fewer trucks, by a long shot, but then again you have four lanes in each direction, which gives you more weaving and certainly more traffic in general, thus conducive to lower speeds.  There's a reason the Northeast moves slower!

It may be true that traffic is a major factor in speed limits, but most of the time (barring accidents/rush hour) traffic moves on I-84 and most other roads in CT faster than the speed limit.  A speed limit is a limit, it isn't a requirement that drivers must go 65.  I believe in following the flow of traffic.  That's just a opinion of a person that has lived in CT for his entire life.  


speed debate split into a new topic in General Highway Talk --ms

[ShawnP]

It's why I call them safety Nazi's. I hated Missouri's front plates requirement. I have never heard of any one getting caught or not caught because of the front plates or lack thereof. In a tight budget times how much would Missouri save by not having to make 2 plates for each vehicle?

[hobsini2]

Here's a different idea for the speed limits.  each lane has a specific speed limit.  Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70.  by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law.  No passing on the right either.

[Henry]

Agreed that Illinois freeways could handle 75mph, but I think 70mph would be best to match with the surrounding states (IN, KY, MO, IA).  Personally, I think that the 70mph zones should include many Chicagoland expressways (Ryan express lanes, Kennedy express lanes, Stevenson from the Ryan outwards, I-57) and the entire Tollway system.

Since Oregon and Wisconsin are also surrounded by 70-mph states, they should raise the speed limit to that number as well. And Kansas (as well as the rest of Texas) should go back to 75 mph, as it did in the old days.

[agentsteel53]

Here's a different idea for the speed limits.  each lane has a specific speed limit.  Since 95% of all exits are on the right, the right lane could be 60, the middle lane 65 and the left lane 70.  by doing this, you can finally legitimately enforce the Illinois Left Lane law.  No passing on the right either.

the left lane should be minimum 70, maximum 99.  if you want to go, go.  if not, stay home.

[jackson1834]

Texas just proposed and passed legislation to raise the speed limit on I-10 & I-20 in West Texas from 80 MPH to 85 MPH

[agentsteel53]

now we'll see what the enforcement is.

everybody's poor these days.

their word against yours.

[thenetwork]

Texas just proposed and passed legislation to raise the speed limit on I-10 & I-20 in West Texas from 80 MPH to 85 MPH

As if 80 isn't fast enough, huh? 

I usually do between 68-72 MPH on 75 MPH stretches of interstate, mainly to conserve on gas.  Also because that was my usual "cruising speed" on 65 MPH highways in Ohio, when I used to live there.

[pianocello]

Why can't our government be as smart as the Germans? On the autobahn there's only a speed limit for buses, trucks, and vehicles with trailers. For other vehicles there's no speed limit at all (I'm guessing in rural areas, like downstate Illinois)

[JasonMath]

the left lane should be minimum 70, maximum 99.  if you want to go, go.  if not, stay home.

And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour?  The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush.  There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph.  Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.

In addition, if one of the current lanes is converted into a toll lane, than traffic in the other lanes will move even more slowly.  You might have stop-and-go hour traffic at 7:30 PM in the free lanes while people paying $0.50-$1.00 per mile might be going at 75 mph.  Because of that, a toll lane proposal wouldn't be very popular unless the tolls would only be on newly constructed road.

Also, many people speed because the speed limits are set artificially low and they know they can drive faster safely.  People have been conditioned to view speed limits not as an actual limit, but as a way of saying that it's safe to go 10-20 mph above the limit.  If you raise the speed limit to 75 mph and the safe maximum speed is 80 mph, how many people will be involved in accidents because they go 85-90 mph?  Any increase in the speed limit to an 85% traffic threshold must include a public awareness campaign that admits that past speed limits on the road were not made for safety reasons, but political reasons.  The campaign also must mention that the limit is a firm limit (drivers will be ticketed for going even 1-5 mph above the limit), and be fully enforced (with the hiring of additional police officers).  Otherwise, any speed limit must factor in the tendency to go 10-20 mph above the limit.

[vdeane]

And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour?  The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush.  There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph.  Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.

Traffic jams happen because one vehicle wants to go slower than the others.  If the minimum speed limit were obeyed, this would not happen.  Just look at Buffalo, NY: the interstates are congested enough to cause major backups in most cities, but they flow smoothly because everyone moves at the same speed.

Also, many people speed because the speed limits are set artificially low and they know they can drive faster safely.  People have been conditioned to view speed limits not as an actual limit, but as a way of saying that it's safe to go 10-20 mph above the limit.  If you raise the speed limit to 75 mph and the safe maximum speed is 80 mph, how many people will be involved in accidents because they go 85-90 mph?  Any increase in the speed limit to an 85% traffic threshold must include a public awareness campaign that admits that past speed limits on the road were not made for safety reasons, but political reasons.  The campaign also must mention that the limit is a firm limit (drivers will be ticketed for going even 1-5 mph above the limit), and be fully enforced (with the hiring of additional police officers).  Otherwise, any speed limit must factor in the tendency to go 10-20 mph above the limit.

This is false.  Most people ignore speed limits entirely and drive at the speed they feel comfortable at.  Studies support this.  The idea that people speed at x amount above the limit is nothing more than hogwash spouted by the people who want low speed limits.

[Sykotyk]

And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour?  The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush.  There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph.  Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.

Traffic jams happen because one vehicle wants to go slower than the others.  If the minimum speed limit were obeyed, this would not happen.  Just look at Buffalo, NY: the interstates are congested enough to cause major backups in most cities, but they flow smoothly because everyone moves at the same speed.

Actually, in rush hour a lot of traffic forms because off-ramps can't handle the sheer volume of traffic, backing up onto the mainline. Combine that with people jockeying for position to take the exit ramps and you get a slow down. Rush hour doesn't happen because that's when the 'slow folks' decide to drive on the freeway.

Also, many people speed because the speed limits are set artificially low and they know they can drive faster safely.  People have been conditioned to view speed limits not as an actual limit, but as a way of saying that it's safe to go 10-20 mph above the limit.  If you raise the speed limit to 75 mph and the safe maximum speed is 80 mph, how many people will be involved in accidents because they go 85-90 mph?  Any increase in the speed limit to an 85% traffic threshold must include a public awareness campaign that admits that past speed limits on the road were not made for safety reasons, but political reasons.  The campaign also must mention that the limit is a firm limit (drivers will be ticketed for going even 1-5 mph above the limit), and be fully enforced (with the hiring of additional police officers).  Otherwise, any speed limit must factor in the tendency to go 10-20 mph above the limit.

This is false.  Most people ignore speed limits entirely and drive at the speed they feel comfortable at.  Studies support this.  The idea that people speed at x amount above the limit is nothing more than hogwash spouted by the people who want low speed limits.

Average speed people drive, from what I read, is 72mph. Regardless of the actual limit. It's the comfort zone. Will people speed just to speed? Yes. But they do that now anyways. Raise the speed limit, but up the fines for speeding on 'high speed corridors' like freeways or expressways.

[hobsini2]

And what happens if its rush hour in Chicago and all of the lanes are only 15 miles per hour?  The only way to ensure that traffic moves quickly is to have special tolled lanes for people in a rush.  There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph.  Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.

Traffic jams happen because one vehicle wants to go slower than the others.  If the minimum speed limit were obeyed, this would not happen.  Just look at Buffalo, NY: the interstates are congested enough to cause major backups in most cities, but they flow smoothly because everyone moves at the same speed.

Actually, in rush hour a lot of traffic forms because off-ramps can't handle the sheer volume of traffic, backing up onto the mainline. Combine that with people jockeying for position to take the exit ramps and you get a slow down. Rush hour doesn't happen because that's when the 'slow folks' decide to drive on the freeway.

I mostly agree with that assesment.  HOWEVER, The one daily instance that pops out to me in my mind in Chicagoland, mainly cuz i drive it daily, is the SB Tri-State from O'Hare to Wolf Rd.  Yes, the entrance ramps from O'Hare and Balmoral way in on it as well as the Cash lanes from the Irving Park Plaza and the O'Hare Oasis entrance ramp.  But, there is NO good reason for it to back up beyond the Oasis which it does all the time.  Then low and behold, when you get to Wolf Rd, which has no ramps to/from 294, it goes back up to a 65 mph flow.  This, i believe, is from dumbass slow cracker drivers (Boers & Bernstein reference) who go 45 in the 2 left lanes or for some reason can't drive when the sun is at a bad angle. The distance from the Oasis to Wolf is about 2 miles.

In any case, to all you bozos out there who do drive like this, get the hell out of my way and stay home.  This also goes for people who feel they need to be REALLY cautious with a SNOW FLURRY!   Stay Home!  These are the same people who also bitch about 30s and 40s in March and 90s in July.  You live here. That is the climate. Get used to it or move on.  It's not the worst climate in the country (Florida and Louisiana looking at you).

ok i am off my box. 

[Brandon]

Hobsini, +1 

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I agree.  When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65.  I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury).  When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic. 

I-84 could be 75 between the MA state line and Hartford easily.  Between Waterbury and Danbury?  Not a chance.  WAY too congested, almost all the time.  I've clinched eastern I-84 more times than I can count.  I'd know.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Why can't our government be as smart as the Germans? On the autobahn there's only a speed limit for buses, trucks, and vehicles with trailers. For other vehicles there's no speed limit at all (I'm guessing in rural areas, like downstate Illinois)

Because are people aren't as smart as the Germans.

[InterstateNG]

Why can't our government be as smart as the Germans? On the autobahn there's only a speed limit for buses, trucks, and vehicles with trailers. For other vehicles there's no speed limit at all (I'm guessing in rural areas, like downstate Illinois)

Because are people aren't as smart as the Germans.

As you've demonstrated.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I didn't get any sleep the night prior. Cut a guy some slack, dammit.

[Rick Powell]

the left lane should be minimum 70, maximum 99.  if you want to go, go.  if not, stay home.

There would also need to be speed sensors to ensure that people are moving at least 70 mph.  Cameras near the sensors would need to take license plate photos of those vehicles traveling below 70 mph, and the owners of each vehicle would receive a ticket in the mail.

I'd prefer something like the movie Speed, where the vehicle gets self-detonated if it falls below 50 mph.

[DaBigE]

In any case, to all you bozos out there who do drive like this, get the hell out of my way and stay home.  This also goes for people who feel they need to be REALLY cautious with a SNOW FLURRY!   Stay Home!  These are the same people who also bitch about 30s and 40s in March and 90s in July.  You live here. That is the climate. Get used to it or move on.  It's not the worst climate in the country (Florida and Louisiana looking at you).

Amen

I would also add the people that over-drive their vehicle's capabilities and somehow also think 4x4's are immune to the laws of physics.  A close second are those that think they're driving an 18-wheeler when attempting to make a right turn.

As for Wisconsin and their fear of posting anything higher than 65, I don't see it happening anytime in the near future.  We'll have red-light cameras and lose our front plates before higher speed limits see the light of day.  Besides, when Illinois raises theirs, I see big bucks flowing in from the south thanks to our form of "tollbooths" (speed traps).

[SSOWorld]

Wisconsin - the Oregon of the Midwest.

[Jordanah1]

i think most freeways in wisconsin outside of milwaukee and madison could handle 75MPH without much problem, though if say US41 was 75MPH from north of milwaukee to green bay, the Fox cities would probably have to slow down to 70, probably in green bay and mabey in oshkosh too, although the oshkosh portion is pretty straight with good interchange spacing....like DaBigE said though, we probably will still be in the slow lane for a while here. more likely to see US12 built from elkhorn-Madison and have that at at 100MPH than see a speed limit increase to 70MPH everywere else within the next 10 years...