Speed limit

[IronTiger]

Yeah, it was mostly in regards to "Things you do not want to happen to you" category. Amazingly, the accident didn't incapacitate either driver (physics says that most of the force was applied to the road, and not into the hapless minivan), but a situation like that (especially as I've been in that particular intersection many times) is something you NEVER, EVER want to see. 

[mollusk]

If this is something that happens routinely in this intersection, there is a serious design issue afoot (he said, demonstrating once again his startling grasp of the obvious).

[samagon]

How do you figure that?

 

Which burns more fuel and emits more carbon:

1) A 30-minute commute at 50 mph, or;

2) A 60-minute commute at 25 mph.

 

this is very painful to read.

 

I will offer an explanation as to why this is so very incorrect, but will not deliver unless you are willing to learn.

[JLWM8609]

In the Dallas and Fort Worth Districts, they are raising the speed limits back to the pre-2001 levels or higher based on the 85th percentile operating speed, and the road design.

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/committees/rtc/documents/Item_9.rtc111314.pdf

[DNAguy]

According to any cop that has pulled me over, it is not 'safe' to drive over a speed limit....

 

If they increase the speed limit on a road that has had no safety improvements, does that mean that the police are liars? Are speeding tickets not there to secure the safety of the citizens, but as a means to generate revenue?

 

Say it ain't so!

[Ross]

Speed limits are statutory presumptions of what is reasonable and prudent. Cops spout the "safe" mantra in an effort to sound knowledgeable. I know people who have avoided paying a fine by arguing that going 50 in a 30 was reasonable and prudent given the conditions and vehicle.

[Trae]

In the Dallas and Fort Worth Districts, they are raising the speed limits back to the pre-2001 levels or higher based on the 85th percentile operating speed, and the road design.

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/committees/rtc/documents/Item_9.rtc111314.pdf

Lucky them. Needs to happen here now. Don't know what is taking them so long here. Austin also has several tollways with 70 or 75 speed limits. SA some also.

[august948]

Speed limits are statutory presumptions of what is reasonable and prudent. Cops spout the "safe" mantra in an effort to sound knowledgeable. I know people who have avoided paying a fine by arguing that going 50 in a 30 was reasonable and prudent given the conditions and vehicle.

 

I'd like to hear the argument they used for being 20 mph over the speed limit.

 

"But officer, it's reasonable and prudent for ME to drive over the speed limit.  My car is German-engineered for the Autobahn!"

 

[Trae]

I'd like to hear the argument they used for being 20 mph over the speed limit.

"But officer, it's reasonable and prudent for ME to drive over the speed limit. My car is German-engineered for the Autobahn!"

"And there were no other cars, or even pedestrians on the road, and it was a clear sunny day!"

[IronTiger]

Lucky them. Needs to happen here now. Don't know what is taking them so long here. Austin also has several tollways with 70 or 75 speed limits. SA some also.

Did Houston ever drop speed limits in 2001? I mean, the arterial highways, for instance: have they not always been 65?

[JLWM8609]

Did Houston ever drop speed limits in 2001? I mean, the arterial highways, for instance: have they not always been 65?

 

Yes. The speed limits were dropped to 55 on all highways in the Houston District. Previously, on most freeways in Houston, it was 60 inside the loop and on the loop itself, 65 between the loop and beltway, and 70 outside the beltway and on the Tollway. Interestingly, I think the HOV lanes were exempt. I remember the HOV lane on the Southwest Freeway retaining its 70 mph limit for years in the section outside the Beltway while the mainlanes in that same section were reduced to 55 and later increased to 65.

[ADCS]

Speed limits are statutory presumptions of what is reasonable and prudent. Cops spout the "safe" mantra in an effort to sound knowledgeable. I know people who have avoided paying a fine by arguing that going 50 in a 30 was reasonable and prudent given the conditions and vehicle.

 

In Texas, yes, speed limits are prima facie. However, in most other states, they are absolute; that is, you have strict liability for exceeding the speed limit.

[rsb320]

Yes. The speed limits were dropped to 55 on all highways in the Houston District. Previously, on most freeways in Houston, it was 60 inside the loop and on the loop itself, 65 between the loop and beltway, and 70 outside the beltway and on the Tollway. Interestingly, I think the HOV lanes were exempt. I remember the HOV lane on the Southwest Freeway retaining its 70 mph limit for years in the section outside the Beltway while the mainlanes in that same section were reduced to 55 and later increased to 65.

 

They were dropped as a result of ozone test results by the Feds.

[samagon]

They were dropped as a result of ozone test results by the Feds.

 

right, and they were raised again by politicians who wanted to be reelected by people who feel that they are entitled to get to their destination 54 seconds faster by going 5mph quicker over a 10 mile freeway drive.

 

they should be lowered again. the quality of air every other person in this town breaths shouldn't be subject to one person feeling like they are better than everyone else.

 

if that's the case then they should let people start smoking in restaurants and office buildings again.

[ADCS]

right, and they were raised again by politicians who wanted to be reelected by people who feel that they are entitled to get to their destination 54 seconds faster by going 5mph quicker over a 10 mile freeway drive.

 

they should be lowered again. the quality of air every other person in this town breaths shouldn't be subject to one person feeling like they are better than everyone else.

 

if that's the case then they should let people start smoking in restaurants and office buildings again.

 

I think it had more to do with the 55 mph limit being ignored by practically everyone on the freeway. Furthermore, 55 was an awful number to pick in the first place, owing to its historical implications.

[samagon]

I understand that a lot of people didn't abide by the reduced limit, but to stick with my smoking analogy, it really doesn't make it okay, or right.

 

I'm familiar with the lyrical implications brought upon us by the highly acclaimed songwriter Sammy "Red Rocker" Hagar, but I am not aware of other historical implications?

[ADCS]

I understand that a lot of people didn't abide by the reduced limit, but to stick with my smoking analogy, it really doesn't make it okay, or right.

 

I'm familiar with the lyrical implications brought upon us by the highly acclaimed songwriter Sammy "Red Rocker" Hagar, but I am not aware of other historical implications?

 

Pretty much the same. Very few liked the double nickel back in the 70s, and it was often ascribed to federal overreach. Implementing the same speed for environmental reasons were just going to raise the same hackles. This is Texas we're talking about, after all.

[JLWM8609]

right, and they were raised again by politicians who wanted to be reelected by people who feel that they are entitled to get to their destination 54 seconds faster by going 5mph quicker over a 10 mile freeway drive.

 

they should be lowered again. the quality of air every other person in this town breaths shouldn't be subject to one person feeling like they are better than everyone else.

 

if that's the case then they should let people start smoking in restaurants and office buildings again.

 

Vehicular emissions aren't the only contributor to bad air quality. The bulk of it comes from refineries. When you look at an ozone map on a particularly bad day in Houston, the source of ozone isn't from the highways. It comes from the east side and spreads in whatever direction the wind is blowing that day and circulates in the days following. After new EPA standards went into effect in 2005, peak ozone concentrations began to drop sharply. By 2009, Houston began to meet the Federal Air Quality Standard for the first time in 35 years, and it wasn't because people were driving 65 mph instead of 70 mph. It was because petrochemical companies began to fix problems that led to chemical leaks and took initiative to reduce accidental releases. Other sources of pollution include print shops, gas stations, and dry cleaners, which can all put out more VOCs than refineries. Here's some stories about Houston air quality as it relates to refineries.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/185993899/breathing-easier-how-houston-is-working-to-clean-up-its-air

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187459766/houstons-petrochemical-industry-source-of-jobs-and-smog

 

Cars today have cleaner emissions than the ones sold 10-12 years ago, and they're getting cleaner. You have more hybrids and electric cars on the road, and diesel vehicles with particulate filters running on Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel, synthetic diesel, or Biodiesel, which all produce lower or even no particulates compared to the Low Sulfur Diesel that was being sold 10-12 years ago.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm 

[mollusk]

The reason the 55 mph speed limit came in was because of the Arab Oil Embargo, and it was nationwide.  It was supposed to be temporary, and ended up following the aphorism "nothing is as permanent as the temporary."  The theory was that it would save fuel with the side benefit of enhancing safety; in reality any such reductions could just as easily have been rounding errors.  Having started driving when Texas had a 70 mph limit that was generally considered a polite suggestion and a 650 mile drive to and from college beginning immediately after the 55 was imposed, I can verify that it certainly sucked (although moving radar hadn't been invented yet, DPS kept their parking lights on at night, and pretty much anyone doing much long distance driving had a CB radio... good buddy).  Side note:  Before 1974, neither Nevada nor Montana had a speed limit outside of cities and towns.  In Nevada, the sign at the city limits read "Resume Your Speed."

 

Emissions from first cars and then trucks are now a single digit percentage of what they were before pollution regulations started to come in during the late '60s.  OTOH, locomotives and ships are still uncontrolled for all intents and purposes. Stationary sources have been reduced, too, but man they sure kick and scream about it - even though their reduction is far less than vehicles.

[Blue Dogs]

I'm in favor increasing the speed limit based on high school & college students speeding on the road, etc.,

[Trae]

Add Atlanta as another city that is seeing an increase in speed limits. When will it be our turn in Houston?

http://wabe.org/post/65-too-slow-try-70-miles-hour-gdot-increases-speed-limits-metro-atlanta

[totheskies]

Freeways vs. highways vs. city streets

 

1) On rural freeways, we should up most speed limits.  Once people are out of the city, let them drive what's comfortable for them, as long as they adhere to passing rules.  In my opinion, even rural freeways should be 6 lanes for 21st century America... a slow lane to the far right, a middle lane mostly for passing, and a fast lane to the left (with significant median).  

 

2) On highways, we should lower the speed limits.  These are incredibly dangerous roads to try and turn into/ out of because drivers simply aren't paying attention.  ESPECIALLY at night.  

 

3) For city streets, we should have a LOWER speed limit, and stop signs/ stop lights on every corner.  A road like Westheimer, especially the section in Montrose should be reduced to 2 lanes (one each way) so that people can just completely and totally abandon any notion of being able to drive fast on that road.  If you want to get somewhere fast, take the freeway.  The way people drive on city streets is simply appalling in Houston.  No wonder so my cyclists and pedestrians have gotten killed.  And then of course people get all mad when they see someone walking or taking a wheelchair in the street.  But were they expected to walk on the sidewalk?  In Houston??  What sidewalks??  And if there is one, it's probably broken to crap.  

 

But basically my point is this... drivers need to learn which roads are built for them, and which roads are not.  If it ain't a freeway, don't drive on it like it is!!  

[cloud713]

Vehicular emissions aren't the only contributor to bad air quality. The bulk of it comes from refineries. When you look at an ozone map on a particularly bad day in Houston, the source of ozone isn't from the highways. It comes from the east side and spreads in whatever direction the wind is blowing that day and circulates in the days following. After new EPA standards went into effect in 2005, peak ozone concentrations began to drop sharply. By 2009, Houston began to meet the Federal Air Quality Standard for the first time in 35 years, and it wasn't because people were driving 65 mph instead of 70 mph. It was because petrochemical companies began to fix problems that led to chemical leaks and took initiative to reduce accidental releases. Other sources of pollution include print shops, gas stations, and dry cleaners, which can all put out more VOCs than refineries. Here's some stories about Houston air quality as it relates to refineries.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/185993899/breathing-easier-how-houston-is-working-to-clean-up-its-air

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187459766/houstons-petrochemical-industry-source-of-jobs-and-smog

Cars today have cleaner emissions than the ones sold 10-12 years ago, and they're getting cleaner. You have more hybrids and electric cars on the road, and diesel vehicles with particulate filters running on Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel, synthetic diesel, or Biodiesel, which all produce lower or even no particulates compared to the Low Sulfur Diesel that was being sold 10-12 years ago.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm

This. No offense to the person advocating lowering the speed limit for public health (I have asthma, so I feel that...), but is that person really suggesting we lower the speed limits when there are companies in the area making BILLIONS while polluting our air? Shouldnt we care more about minimizing that pollution source instead of preventing the average joe from getting to work on time and/or having more time to spend with their family?

[samagon]

cloud713.

 

low hanging fruit. it's easier to drop the speed limit by 5 mph on freeways than it is to make that chemical company on the ship channel do better for the environment.

 

as for how much time it adds to a commute, if you drive 15 miles on a freeway going 55 mph it takes 16 minutes 21 seconds instead of 15 minutes at 60 mph. one and a half minutes. 3 minutes a day difference.

 

commuting usually doesn't equal going the speed limit though, you maybe hit the speed limit for 5 miles of that 15 mile journey, if that, but let's say that, so 5 miles at 55mph is 5 minutes 27 seconds, vs 5 minutes, so thirty seconds it adds. one minute a day. usually around 240 working days a year, that's 4 whole hours you lose each year to driving 5 mph slower on the freeway.

 

what if driving slower affords you not a longer life, but a higher quality of life between the ages of 65 and 70? what if you were able to be more active, and spend more time with your children, or grandchildren by giving up 4 hours a year with them when you're working?

 

I'd love to see government get serious about cleaning up industry, but if the options are:

 

a. not do anything but grumble that the other guy should have to change

b. change your own habits, and still grumble, which will maybe make a difference to your quality of life

c. everyone changes, and maybe make a difference to your quality of life

 

c isn't going to happen, and a is pointless, I'll take my chances trading 4 hours a year at the possibility of getting better retirement years.

[ADCS]

The issue is that no one goes 55 even if that's what the speed limit is. All Houston-area freeways (with the exception of pre-construction 290 and 45 between Downtown and the Shepherd Curve) are designed so that going 65 mph+ is comfortable to the average driver.

 

If you added a lane to all of the freeways, dropped the lane width from 12 ft to 10 ft, and narrow the shoulders, that might be a viable plan, but then you'd be risking interstate highway funding for 45, 10 and 610.

[ADCS]

(please delete, unintentional duplicate post)

[cloud713]

cloud713.

low hanging fruit. it's easier to drop the speed limit by 5 mph on freeways than it is to make that chemical company on the ship channel do better for the environment.

as for how much time it adds to a commute, if you drive 15 miles on a freeway going 55 mph it takes 16 minutes 21 seconds instead of 15 minutes at 60 mph. one and a half minutes. 3 minutes a day difference.

commuting usually doesn't equal going the speed limit though, you maybe hit the speed limit for 5 miles of that 15 mile journey, if that, but let's say that, so 5 miles at 55mph is 5 minutes 27 seconds, vs 5 minutes, so thirty seconds it adds. one minute a day. usually around 240 working days a year, that's 4 whole hours you lose each year to driving 5 mph slower on the freeway.

what if driving slower affords you not a longer life, but a higher quality of life between the ages of 65 and 70? what if you were able to be more active, and spend more time with your children, or grandchildren by giving up 4 hours a year with them when you're working?

I'd love to see government get serious about cleaning up industry, but if the options are:

a. not do anything but grumble that the other guy should have to change

b. change your own habits, and still grumble, which will maybe make a difference to your quality of life

c. everyone changes, and maybe make a difference to your quality of life

c isn't going to happen, and a is pointless, I'll take my chances trading 4 hours a year at the possibility of getting better retirement years.

But they didn't drop the speed limit by 5mph. They dropped it by FIFTEEN.

Idk, I just don't follow your logic. Imo that would be like taxing the poor for using food stamps, instead of increasing the taxes of restaurants where the rich go.. (Figuratively speaking)

[samagon]

My logic is that they are two separate things that result in the same outcome.

 

Lowering the freeway speed limit will result in better air quality.

 

Better management and policing of industrial facilities will result in better air quality.

 

If the goal is better air quality, which of the two listed above is low hanging fruit, IE easier to implement?

[ADCS]

My logic is that they are two separate things that result in the same outcome.

 

Lowering the freeway speed limit will result in better air quality.

 

Better management and policing of industrial facilities will result in better air quality.

 

If the goal is better air quality, which of the two listed above is low hanging fruit, IE easier to implement?

 

The latter. There are fewer points of potential failure that need policing. Lowering the speed limit only works if there is massive compliance (which there is not), or enforcement, and given that several Houston freeways have around 300,000 vehicles traveling them on a daily basis, pulling over even 1,000 drivers a day would represent only 0.3% of the drivers that day. Most people will risk those odds, especially if everyone else around them is speeding.

 

Sure, better policing and management of industrial facilities represents a stronger political problem than lowering the speed limit, but it is vastly easier as far as implementation goes.

[JLWM8609]

Lucky them. Needs to happen here now. Don't know what is taking them so long here. Austin also has several tollways with 70 or 75 speed limits. SA some also.

 

I drove the Grand Parkway between 290 and I-10 for the first time this evening and noticed that the speed limit on that stretch is 70. I guess that's because it was designed and built after the environmental speed limits were rescinded.