Meeky passes on a link to an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (unfortunately it requires a login) about states raising speed limits to as high as 80 mph. Here’s a partial sample:
States around the country, including Texas and Michigan, have recently increased speed limits on hundreds of miles of interstate highways and freeways. Other states are expected to follow soon.
Near Detroit, drivers long confronted by signs telling them to go no more than 55 miles per hour or 65 mph are seeing new signs with 70 mph speed limits. By November, cruising at 70 mph will be allowed on nearly 200 miles of road, including parts of Interstate 75 and M-59, a major suburban route. Texas has begun erecting 80 mph signs along 521 miles of I-10 and I-20 in 10 rural western counties, giving them the highest speed limit in the U.S. In September, Virginia is likely to boost the speed limit on I-85 near the North Carolina border to 70 mph from 65 mph.
Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That’s because higher speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower. Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Meeky’s reaction:
This is unreal – and a logical outcome of designing highways for higher speeds than are (or were) legally allowed, to protect the builders from lawsuits.
Notice the “people drive that fast anyway” argument.
The one that really frosts me, “…and many drivers are now protected by front and side airbags.” So what about those who don’t have them? Or peds and cyclists (which do exist on these roads)? Guess they’re just (soon to be) chopped liver.
The awful outcome of this is, of course, the possibility that “It isn’t clear if the urge to increase speed limits on interstates will trickle down to smaller roads and streets, usually controlled by local officials.” – where there are more peds and cyclists.
26 responses to “Too Fast”
“The Department of Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas.”
The Department of Energy, as with many Government Departments, is on crack.
A V6 240 hp Nissan Altima can be driven at 60 mph and get about 33-35mpg. At 90 it gets about 29 mpg. At 130mpg it gets about 23-24 mpg. If gas is the “only” cost then maybe 7-23%. It’s not though and this higher speed barely effects the maintenance that needs to occur on the vehicle or the overall price of the car. These two things are THE highest cost of owning a car, not fuel purchases(at least for the first 5-10 years).
A V6 Toyota Camry is even less affected. A Honda Accord V6 is also barely affected. Even on not so great vehicles, with very questionable smog/emissions such as turbo vehicles (Subaru), Fords, GM Products, etc there is barely a dent in cost difference. Four cylinders are even less effected.
If anything it is an embarrassment for America to drive so slow as we currently do on the “Freeways”. It is just sick, while Europe has it’s “Autobahn” and Autostransa” we have a patheticly used (and barely payed for) Freeway/Interstate System that basically just sits there underutilized.
If there is one major problem with allowing higher speeds it is the fact that we barely pay for the roads as it is, nobody takes “REAL” driving instruction, and we get “re-licensed” ever how many years? That is the obvious reason we have such a high fatality rate and accident rate compared to European roads of the “developed” areas such as Germany, France, etc.
As for the comment “The one that really frosts me, “…and many drivers are now protected by front and side airbags.” So what about those who don’t have them? Or peds and cyclists (which do exist on these roads)?” On the Interstates where this is occurring (and people have been attempting to make it occur for decades) pedestrians/bikes, also known as non-motorized vehicles, are illegal.
As for the trickle down onto rural/urban roads. Of course it will, it already does. The only change this REALLY is going to make is it is going to take unfair taxes away from the Police/Troopers that ticket. That is your functional change that will occur, along with maybe a 1-2% higher fatality rate in Interstate wrecks. With all the time saved, it’s well worth the cost. Considering the rage, anger, and frustration of owning, maintaining, and operating a car that should and is built to safely be utilized at 100mph+ speeds and being in traffic at a measly 55, 65, 70 or 75mph. Even 80mph makes us Americans and our grand “Interstate Freeway and Military Highway” System seem a joke. We can land military planes every x miles but we can’t utilize our hard earned vehicles on them.
I was just thinking of an analogy. It’s like building a Streetcar System, then allowing only 10 people on per car because of the false illusions of “safety”. Personally I’d want the Streetcar PACKED!
…and once again, this is a Republic, where eventually the people get what they want. Somehow and in some form, this speed increase has been in the queue for decades. It’s about time the Federal Government, in following it’s own constitutional laws and boundaries allows states to operate and run themselves and things that they(states) are supposed to maintain once complete anyway. Only logical.
Also just a note. I don’t drive much because of the embarrasing state of our roads, the lack of technological utilization, and silly, petty, and unrelated statistically derived regulations that are placed on me as a driver.
I do however own a car that is perfectly capable, and oft driven at it’s “safe” speed on Interstates, back roads, and other places. When in school zones I go 20 (sometimes less depending on people around at the time). When in urban areas I go 20 or less. But I’ll be damned if I’m going 55-75 on the interstate. 90mph is the min for me, protected by my technology and the fact that at 90 I can stop faster than 90% of the cars on the road at 70mph I do just fine. I hate and despise that I am limited by the mediocrity of America’s road system, and our passive, juvenile approach to solving problems with the roadways.
Thus one of the reasons I’m pro-mass transit. It gets those that don’t need to be on the road off. Per better driver training hopefully we can get more of those people off the road and onto transit. It’s a thought, it’s an actual solution to the “wrecks” that occur everyday. The speed restrictions are merely a “band aid” along with many others.
90mph is the min for me, protected by my technology and the fact that at 90 I can stop faster than 90% of the cars on the road at 70mph I do just fine.
To call this irresponsible is an understatement. Traveling at a speed 25 mph faster than other traffic is inherently dangerous. If someone changed lanes in front of you, I have no doubt that you would blame them when you hit them.
Another interesting point about speed limits that Oregonians will have to confront in the near future if the state goes with quasi-private roads run by tolling companies: These companies argue for higher speed limits in their contracts for the obvious reason they can get more vehicles on the highway paying more tolls.
Jim –
Toll companies may want higher speeds for some reason but fitting more cars on the road isn’t one of them. Beyond a certain point the faster traffic, the less volume because the added distance between vehicles more than cancels out the extra speed. There is now some debate about the break even point, but it iss generally in the range of 30 to 45 mph.
I love the Autobahn. It’s a far better engineered road system than anything we have here in America. All roadwork is flagged like ten miles in advance. All exits are smooth-decelerating. The paving is smooth and flawless throughout. The drivers are well-trained; everybody signals, there’s only two lanes and if you’re not passing someone you’re in the right-hand lane, period! It’s illegal to operate a car that’s not in top-flite condition — a biannual inspection called “Teuft” weeds out any car that pollutes, leaks or rusts.
Of course they still have a lot of gruesome traffic accidents, and a lot of “schtau” (traffic jams). But, if you don’t like it, you can ride the inter-city train system instead.
The German Autobahn is designed for high-speed driving. Our Interstate Highway System, much less so. Still, with some more expensive, high-quality repaving, some better signage, more difficult driving tests, more standby emergency crews, and other safety improvements, I’m sure we could handle a higher speed limit with a minimal increase in fatalities that drivers would probably accept. People like to go fast. Expect it to cost billions, but it’s doable.
And I think the increased fuel consumption will be more than offset by the 10% of American drivers who will be found too incompetent to keep their drivers’ licenses, and will be forced to use public transit. Probably that will lead to a net safety improvement, too. Furthermore, after we’ve reduced all interstates to two lanes, we’ll have extra space to install that inter-city train system …
But I would *never* accept an increase in city speed limits. I’ll fight that ’till I’m dead. In fact, I’d like to see all local roads lower their speeds to 20mph, or 15mph for non-arterial roads. Make it safe for kids to bicycle to school. Maybe we can effect both changes as some kind of compromise bill …
Ross, the source for my comment is the contract between Texas and the Spanish company Cintra, which provides for the state to get a bigger concession fee on the toll road if the speed limit is raised. Here’s a quote from a company exec:
“This will be a very safe road built to the most modern standards and we think it can operate safely at higher speeds. At higher speeds our studies show we get significantly more traffic, but the decision is up to Texas legislators. We have structured the concession so if we attract more traffic from higher speed, we share the revenues with the state – either in a larger upfront payment or in larger year by year revenue sharing.”
I find it interesting that people are willing to immediately decry that higher speeds on interstates increase fuel consumption while at the same time defending busses and streetcars stopping for passengers at curb extensions and in travel lanes, thereby blocking other traffic that increases congestion and motor vehicle engine idling time which also increases fuel consumption. Definitely this is a double standard.
Jim –
I’m not going to argue with guys who make money by being right. People may be more willing to pay, or willing to pay more, if the speed is higher. It seems from what I read that they think if will be more competitive with the lower speed (and free) interstate it parallels. I’m not sure there are any similar situations being contemplated in Oregon.
Terry –
It is not a double-standard provided that curb extensions are installed wisely and improve transit service where it is most beneficial to do so and that the number of transit riders who receive quicker trips exceeds the number of individual motorists possibly delayed by that bus.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out in other threads, the increasing popularity of hybrid cars, if they eventually dominate the market, will render moot the idea that slower traffic and stop-and-go traffic increase fuel consumption.
A full hybrid car does not idle at stops and does not pollute at all while decelerating or sitting still, and has minimal emissions when accelerating in low-speed traffic.
Personally, on the issue of freeway speeds, I found 55 to be too restrictive in most cases, and in some parts of rural Oregon I find them to be a tad low, but I would not want to see 80mph posted limits anywhere in Oregon. 45-55 in congested urban areas seems reasonable, with 60 in light urban/suburban areas (like the recent increase in Salem), 65 in rural but heavily trafficked areas (such as between Tualatin and Keiser), and I’d like to see 70 in very rural, flat areas with light traffic and good visibility.
Going much faster than that results in too many vehicles operating at a great speed differential. Some vehicles which are perfectly legal to operate on the highway and are safe at 55-65 are not going to be safe at 80.
I know that in Germany they can drive faster, but the situation is much different. It is much more difficult to obtain a license, you must spend more to keep your vehicle in good condition and have it certified, and the driving culture of obedience to the rules and cooperation is well established. Plus, there is ample public transport for those who cannot or do not wish to drive under those conditions.
Now, if you really, really want to lobby for 80mph speed limits in Oregon, and get a significant portion of the population to go along with you, I would drop opposition to higher speed limits on the following conditions:
1. An absolute standard for when a person gets a ticket is codified into the law, and that standard is a 3mph buffer. Go 83mph and get a ticket. Limits are limits.
2. The implementation of photo tickets for violators. This can be done with hidden pavement loops which can be more reliable at attaching a specific speed to a specific car than radar.
3. Statewide DEQ checks which will be upgraded to include brake, tire and speedometer inspection.
4. A restoration of funding for state highway patrols comparable to pre-1990’s levels.
5. Left lane really is for passing only. Really. Someone behind you? Get out of the way.
– Bob R.
It’s funny when you think that 3 years ago the Oregon legislature authorized 70 mph limits for cars and buses and 65 mph limits for trucks on multilane (interstate) highways. In their assessment of 85th percentile speeds of Oregon’s freeways, the department of Public Safety found no freeways in Oregon they felt could accomodate the 70/65 mph limits. This was despite the fact that the 85th percentile speed on I-84 from interchange #168 in Morrow County east to the Idaho line was over 74 mph and many portions of the 5 had 85th percentile speeds above 65 mph. The federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control devices recommends setting speed limits on highways with no or few dwellings at the 85th percentile speed, rounded up to the nearest 5 mph increment. Oregon blew it. In addition, the new 80 mph limit in Texas (70 mph for trucks) is still lower than the 130 km/h limits in most of western Europe.
Just for the record, I can remember when the posted speed on I-84 (then I-80N) on the flat stretches near Hermiston was posted at 75 MPH, while the majority of the rural Oregon interstates were posted at 70 MPH. Both Washington and California have 70 MPH rural interstate speeds. Personally, and for uniformity, I think Oregon should adopt them also. People can drive slower if they so choose. I think the department of Public Safety decision was politically motivated.
And Bob, just for the record, Hybrid cars or otherwise, I still think busses should be required to pull over and let other vehicles pass. Motorists have no choice other than to detour through neighborhood streets. I have done this and I know others have too. There are technological options that could be implemented at signalized intersections that would allow busses to reenter traffic if it is heavy. Besides just being common courtesy, the amount of congestion created, vs the number of people on the bus varies. It all depends on the street or route, the length of time the bus is stopped, how heavy the traffic is and the time of day or night. Personally I believe people who ride local transit (as opposed to express transit) should expect the ride to take longer than driving. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Personally I believe people who ride local transit (as opposed to express transit) should expect the ride to take longer than driving.
I don’t see any reason why people who clog the streets with their autos and create congestion should expect special consideration. I guarantee buses are delayed by autos a lot more than autos are delayed by buses.
Perhaps buses should have lights like emergency vehicles that require single passenger cars to pull over and let them pass. They could turn them on once they had a certain number of passengers.
Perhaps buses should have lights like emergency vehicles that require single passenger cars to pull over and let them pass. They could turn them on once they had a certain number of passengers.
Buses do have special Yield flashers which by law require motorists to let the bus pull back immediately into traffic. The problem is that most motorists are unaware that this blinker has any special meaning, and the law is unenforced.
On the flip side, as I recall from when the flashers were first implemented, the bus is only allowed to use the special yield flasher if it is behind schedule. There is a layover point near my house and I know for a fact that buses use the flasher when leaving the layover, when the schedule shows the bus is operating exactly on-time. I do not know the current status of the law, so I have not complained about the practice.
– Bob R.
Just because a local bus stops every two to four blocks for passengers, the traffic behind that bus should not have to do the same because the bus does not pull out of the travel lane. While gas tax revenues go to fund streets and roads, TriMet fares only cover about 20% of transit operation costs and for the most part do not contribute funds to the pavement the busses travel on.
A few years back I commuted between NE Portland and Hillsboro every day. I used West Burnside rather than the Sunset Highway because if there was an accident on the Sunset, there were very few to zero options for alternatives to get around the back up. The commute took about 45 minutes in the morning and an hour plus in the evening. Using Max would have taken approximately two hours each direction. Walking to & from the Eastside Max station, ten minutes plus (a bus connection actually takes longer due to the wait for both the bus and train to arrive), well over 30 minutes for Max to crawl from the Lloyd center through downtown Portland to Goose Hollow, and then another wait at the Westside Max station for a backwards travel connection provided by my then employer.
The TriMet system is designed to be a to and from downtown transit system, as opposed to a truly regional transit system. It very often doesn’t work very well for cross town commutes. None of the time differential between driving and using transit had anything to do with automobiles slowing down transit for where I wanted to go on my commute. On the other hand, Tri-Met busses often slowed down an entire street full of other traffic. One bus driver on a regular basis would take the center lane coming off the Burnside Bridge eastbound. At Grand Avenue, this driver would use his bus as a barricade and angle it into the curb for passengers from the center lane blocking both the center and right travel lanes. The left travel lane was often backed up from 8th Avenue back to Grand due to drivers waiting for on coming traffic to make left hand turns on 8th and then go North on Grand. The bus driver through his arrogance not only made congestion worse for motorists, but also for later scheduled busses eastbound on the Burnside Bridge.
Another example of where busses create congestion and delay the busses behind them is at NE 33rd and Broadway. The intersection fails to work during some evening peak periods. Much of the congestion created is due to busses stopping in travel lanes northbound on NE 33rd and in both directions on NE Broadway at 33rd. The congestion created by busses stopping in travel lanes eventually delays the schedules of other busses that must pass through the same intersection.
Finally, in reference to Bob’s remarks, I have also observed busses using their yield flashers incorrectly – to change lanes. I was told by a bus driver that once had top seniority at TriMet and now is retired that these flashers were not meant for that kind of use, and that it was illegal to use them in that manner.
Just because a local bus stops every two to four blocks for passengers, the traffic behind that bus should not have to do the same because the bus does not pull out of the travel lane.
One idea which I think would make a reasonable compromise, especially on 4-lane street like Grand or MLK, would be to limit transit stops to major intersections (approx every 4 blocks) and designate the right lane as right-turn-only for autos, but transit may proceed forward. Put the transit stops on the far-side of the intersection.
Many cars turn right from the right lane at major intersections. Some people waiting to turn right are inevitably held up at red lights by a car waiting to proceed forward. The traffic impact may be a wash by encouraging forward commuters to stay in the left 3 lanes but making right turns easier from the right lane.
By having transit stop at the far side of the intersection, and coordinating with signal timing, cars would not be held up at green lights by transit.
It is a configuration similar to this which I have proposed for putting a streetcar route along Hawthorne.
4 blocks is not an unreasonable distance between transit stops… this means a maximum walk of 2 blocks from a given street to a transit stop. The reconfiguration of the transit mall to include rail will place stops 4 or 5 blocks apart, for example, which will improve travel times through downtown for the green line as compared to the current blue/red alignment.
…well over 30 minutes for Max to crawl from the Lloyd center through downtown Portland to Goose Hollow…
I do agree that MAX is quite slow to cross downtown (I would eliminate/combine 3 stops to shave 2-3 minutes off the current schedule), but a lot of the problem is perception. For example, the scheduled peak-hour MAX journey between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow is 20 minutes, not 30:
– Bob R.
I would like to see all bus routes, max routes, and streetcar routes´ stops be changed so they are at a minimum of 4 blocks apart – otherwise you are overlapping the distance between stops. Considering an average american takes approx 1 minute to walk 1 portland city block, why would we need stations any closer together? The transit systems overall speed suffers because of this – just look at the streetcar route through the pearl.
Bob posted “One idea which I think would make a reasonable compromise, especially on 4-lane street like Grand or MLK, would be to limit transit stops to major intersections (approx every 4 blocks) and designate the right lane as right-turn-only for autos, but transit may proceed forward. Put the transit stops on the far-side of the intersection.”
Bob, I agree with the portion of your compromise to place bus stops on the trailing portion of signalized intersections and a greater distance between stops, but not making the right lane right turn only.
My suggestion as a compromise is to remove the portion of the curb extension on the trailing portion of the intersection at the transit stop, so busses could pull out of travel lanes and let other traffic pass. Then after stopping when the bus is ready to move, if traffic is heavy, the bus driver would trigger the flashing yield sign and technology would take over changing the traffic signal to yellow or red so the bus could reenter traffic. The next cycle of the signal would resume normal timing.
I think this is a case where people are ignoring all the issues that curb extensions solve and are focused on a minor inconvenience for a few drivers.
1) Curb extensions make it easier for people to cross the street safely;
2) They save a lot of parking by eliminating the need for “bus stops” in the parking strip.
3) They save time for everyone on the bus and allow buses to stay on schedule.
4) They don’t require traffic to stop to allow the bus to pull back into traffic. Which often interferes with the flow of all lanes as cars move over. Where the bus is stopping every other block, through traffic moves over to the open lanes.
5) Even where there aren’t curb extensions, buses end up hanging out into the lane and blocking traffic as often as not.
Switching the current two block intervals to every three blocks would have almost no effect on how far people had to walk. Now, people can go one block in either direction and hit a bus stop. If they were every three blocks they would still only be one block in one direction (and two in the other).
In reference to curb extensions Ross posted “They save time for everyone.” I totally disagree. Who is everyone? Everyone on the bus or everyone behind the bus? On NE 33rd for example, there are big gaps in traffic flow when a bus is on the street. There is certainly no time savings for any vehicles behind these busses that stop every few blocks.
Ross also posted “They don’t require traffic to stop to allow the bus to pull back into traffic.” That is because the traffic is already blocked and stopped.
The fact is that stop and go traffic consumes more fuel than vehicles going at a constant speed. This is true for hybrids too. So far hybrid technology has only been applied to the econo-car, compact car and small SUV market. Midsized and larger light duty cargo hauling trucks such vans, pickups and SUVs do not appear to be on the immediate horizon for hybrid technology. One exception might be GM’s Silverado pickup. The question also exists if such vehicles would be cost effective. Furthermore, not everyone can fit into or wants to drive a vehicle that is so small it is uncomfortable, does not meet the needs of family or businesses needing load capacity, and/or has the feeling of being unsafe when sharing the highway with large semi-trucks and triple trailer rigs.
My previously posted compromise suggestion does not remove all curb extensions at an intersection, only the corner side where a bus stop exists so other traffic can pass when busses do stop there.
The merits are:
1. Traffic flows better on the street with less fuel consumed.
2. Less congestion and negative impacts to the environment.
3. Buses are not delayed due to incorporated technological advances.
4. Pedestrians still have options for crossing the street.
5. All stakeholders win with some compromise.
6. TriMet is perceived as being less of the big bully on the roads.
In reference to curb extensions Ross posted “They save time for everyone.”
No, I didn’t. What I posted was “They save time for everyone on the bus and allow buses to stay on schedule.” You will notice the lack of a period after “everyone”.
On NE 33rd for example, there are big gaps in traffic flow when a bus is on the street. There is certainly no time savings for any vehicles behind these busses that stop every few blocks.
Aren’t there just as certainly time savings for the cars in front of the bus? Those breaks in the flow of traffic reduce congestion by providing space for people to make turns, change lanes etc.
But more to the point, when a bus is full there may be 80 people on it. There are never 80 cars in line behind a bus.
Streetcar isn’t slow because of frequent stops; rather it operates where signals are set for 12 mph. Anyway, frequent stops are the whole point.
re curb extensions…on transit routes and in commercial “main streets” why defer to through traffic? Priority should be given to pedestrian safety, transit efficiency, on street parking, bicyclists and last to motorists who are using the street to get to somewhere else. Maybe they should reconsider their route? Most important motor vehicle speeds need to be held to 20 mph via signage, but especially through design…narrow streets, frequent stops, pavement texture and paint, etc.
Actually, passenger loading time is the biggest variable in reliability.
Damn all those riders :-)
Lenny posted: “re curb extensions…on transit routes and in commercial “main streets” why defer to through traffic? Priority should be given to pedestrian safety, transit efficiency, on street parking, bicyclists and last to motorists who are using the street to get to somewhere else.”
If motorists are to be treated in last place, then stakeholder motorists whom carry the heaviest current tax burden for modes of passenger transport should be contributing the least financially to combined street infrastructure. Therefore, I suggest the gas taxes be lowered. To make up the difference, transit fares that currently cover only 20% of operating costs be raised closer to the $10.00 per ride cost of providing service, and bicyclists must start paying bicycle mode of transport tax for bike lanes and bike infrastructure.
If motorists are to be treated in last place, then stakeholder motorists whom carry the heaviest current tax burden for modes of passenger transport should be contributing the least financially to combined street infrastructure.
They are not in last place on useage. They are in first place, placing a much larger burden on the infrastructure than any of the other modes. We are talking about the priority on two of four to eight lanes of pavement. I doubt there is a single street that requires more than one lane in each direction for all the other modes combined with no requirement for parking at all. And those lanes for other wouldn’t need to be re-paved very often either.
Yes, auto operators do pay a lot of money throught the gas tax. But automobiles also use an enourmous amount of public space and other public resources. We don’t begin to cover the costs through gas taxes.
But the ecnomics argument is misleading anyway. The fact is that people who are on the bus, instead of in their cars, are benefiting the people in their cars by reducing congestion. Encourage those people to get back in their cars, and your trip will be delayed a lot more than it is by the bus stopping to pick up passengers.
Ross, In relation to what auto users pay vs road costs, see the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration on Public Roads at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm
One statement in the report reads: “As a class, automobiles pay the same share of federal highway user fees as their share of highway costs, but pickups, vans, sport utility vehicles, and similar light trucks pay substantially more than their share of highway costs.”
Here is another document that I find interesting:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm
It describes the US Interstate Highway System as “The Best Investment A Nation Ever Made”. Included is quality of life, benefits to the community and positive impacts to the economy.