The American Autobahn

[Vic]

The OP is singing my song. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, I'm fighting this in my home state right now, which has the lowest limits in the West. All we want to do is raise the limit on rural interstates from 65 to 70, and OSP and DOT are both bringing up the "speed kills" bullsh!t. Speed does not kill. Congestion kills. By raising the limit to encourage an appropriate flow, congestion is reduced and our highways become safer. The idiot who blocks the left lane driving less than the limit who thinks he's making the road safer is actually the most dangerous driver on the road.

 

[Eli]

Great article.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP is singing my song. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, I'm fighting this in my home state right now, which has the lowest limits in the West. All we want to do is raise the limit on rural interstates from 65 to 70, and OSP and DOT are both bringing up the "speed kills" bullsh!t. Speed does not kill. Congestion kills. By raising the limit to encourage an appropriate flow, congestion is reduced and our highways become safer. The idiot who blocks the left lane driving less than the limit who thinks he's making the road safer is actually the most dangerous driver on the road.

The only problem I see from being an ex-truck driver is that yes speed would kill IF IF they do not raise it for the truck drivers as well or keep all trucks perm to the right lane. Your doing 80 coming up on a fully loaded truck doing 55-60 and he decides to change lanes because the truck in front of him is doing 50. Who do you think got the perm dirt nap from that wreck? I would love to see 80 but if your sharing the highway with a truck that is only allowed by law to do 55-65 your going to come up on them really fast and we dont spend large amounts of time looking in or mirror to see how fast you coming up on us but to make sure your not there when I move over. And god forbid your comming up on one loaded going up hill chances are they are topped off at 40 so you will be doing double the speed and wont take long to come up on him/her.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: funboy42
The only problem I see from being an ex-truck driver is that yes speed would kill IF IF they do not raise it for the truck drivers as well or keep all trucks perm to the right lane. Your doing 80 coming up on a fully loaded truck doing 55-60 and he decides to change lanes because the truck in front of him is doing 50. Who do you think got the perm dirt nap from that wreck? I would love to see 80 but if your sharing the highway with a truck that is only allowed by law to do 55-65 your going to come up on them really fast and we dont spend large amounts of time looking in or mirror to see how fast you coming up on us but to make sure your not there when I move over. And god forbid your comming up on one loaded going up hill chances are they are topped off at 40 so you will be doing double the speed and wont take long to come up on him/her.

Funny you mention that, I've ran across it many times. Truck speed limit in Oregon is 55 while cars are 65. You want real panic? Try heading up Siskiyou Pass in the left lane doing 75 and a truck doing 15 decides to pass a truck doing 10 right in front of you. Still here though. One must stay alert to all dangers on the road and be prepared.

But, in a way, you're proving my point. Congestion kills. Congestion being crowded traffic operating at differing speeds. It's the different speeds and the lack of sufficient time for reaction that causes the danger. Raising the speed limits will encourage more cars to travel at the same speeds, because a certain group won't be travelling unnaturally slow simply for the sake of obeying the law.

And yes, the law out here is Keep Right Except to Pass, trucks especially.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP is singing my song. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, I'm fighting this in my home state right now, which has the lowest limits in the West. All we want to do is raise the limit on rural interstates from 65 to 70, and OSP and DOT are both bringing up the "speed kills" bullsh!t. Speed does not kill. Congestion kills. By raising the limit to encourage an appropriate flow, congestion is reduced and our highways become safer. The idiot who blocks the left lane driving less than the limit who thinks he's making the road safer is actually the most dangerous driver on the road.

It shouldn't have to be rocket science.

All we need to do is look at the data for this:

Have there been more accidents in the states with higher limits? Less? The same?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i drive the highway infrastructure all over SoCal, i see ridiculous overcrowing and the speed limit is more than of a "goal" than a "reality" (as it used to be).

And i DO see gas hitting $5 a gallon - relatively soon [unfortunately].

Judging the interstates of the US based on So Cal is myopic. Most of the country is not like So Cal at all. I know, I grew up in So Cal and visit there often.

Come out and see the rest of the country some time. Including that area most people just fly over.

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities. MOST people face traffic problems and gridlock. Cali is a good "predictor" for the rest of the USA.

I guess "you article" applies to those of us on vacation and the few of us lucky to live far away from cities.
:roll:

Not at all. When in SoCal I commute often between Granada Hills and Westlake Village by way of Moorpark and the 118. During non-rush hour times I regularly can go 10 over the speed limit with little traffic in my way.

Not all of America's highways are gridlocked, or facing gridlock. To slow everyone down because you live in an area facing gridlock is silly. MILLIONS of people live in areas with little or no gridlock. Are they to be slowed to 55 because you can't drive at 75?

If you want roads expanded, fight the greenies in CA who have fought any and all freeway widening/double decking. Bitching to me is like singing to the choir.

you did miss my point .. . the majority of Americans are gridlocked at least part of the day and slow driving is often the norm in congested areas.

i am not advocating a "return to 55" - rather saying that bad conditions - detoriating highways and overcrowding - is the process slowing the traffic down so that 70 is more of a "goal" rather than the actual traffic [free] flow.

Most of America's great highways were designed in the 50s and built in the 60s and have generally reached capacity in the 80-90s . . . . now it's overflow and the measures takes to expand the freeways are mostly a "band-aid solution" - not just in Cali.

The State and the Feds take a LOT of money in taxes but we don't see any major building or expansion like is necessary if we are to continue as we are . . . . sitting in traffic wastes billions of productive hours.

 

[notfred]

Public Transportation in this country does suck. I was jsut looknig up how much it'd cost to take the amtrack train to my parents house, rather than driving. It's $25, and would take 4 hours. The trip is 150 miles. In my car, that's about 6 gallons of gas. At $3/gallon, that's $18. And it takes less than three hours by car.

Why would anyone take amtrack?

If I could ride some 200mph bullet train and get there in an hour, for under $20, then it'd be a real option.

Edit: And normally, when I do this drive, it's with 2 people in the car. So, it's $18 for 2 people, versus $50 for 2 people on the train.

 

[OutHouse]

and in Texas, it's 75. For the most part

umm last time i checked the speedlimit in Texas is 70 during the day and 65 at night. I stopped reading after that. he doesnt know his facts.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: apoppin

i live in So Cal . . . i have lived in Hawaii recently and i have traveled the USA by car. MOST people live in cities.

Incorrect. In the USA, most people live outside the city in the suburbs. Most people USED to live in cities, but there has been a migration out of the cities into the suburbs.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: apoppin
The gas crisis ended?

:roll:

$3 a gallon is a "crisis" to me . . .
:shocked:

Now that the roads are getting so crowded it looks like 55mph might be the next "goal"

Tell me about it, I just spent $32 to fill up my accord. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[BHeemsoth]

Originally posted by: Citrix

and in Texas, it's 75. For the most part

umm last time i checked the speedlimit in Texas is 70 during the day and 65 at night. I stopped reading after that. he doesnt know his facts.

It could vary from highway to highway dumbass.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Anubis


i wish tomorrow we woudl all wake up and gas woudl be 7$ a gallon,

Why?

You do realize that the people most hurt by that would be the lower classes, right?

Exactly. People that buy a Lexus with a v8 don't care about paying 50-60 bucks a week for gas, but someone that has a banged up civic from 1980 is really hurting when he has to pay that much to get to work. The answer is definitely to move to a renewable energy source for cars.

 

[Vic]

Public transportation is not about fuel economy. That is a common misnomer. Public transportation is about relieving traffic congestion. Otherwise, you have a bus that gets 4 mpg that drives 1000 miles or more all day every day.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Vic
Public transportation is not about fuel economy. That is a common misnomer. Public transportation is about relieving traffic congestion. Otherwise, you have a bus that gets 4 mpg that drives 1000 miles or more all day every day.

That bus that gets 4 mpg carries 50 people. Do the math of mpg per person. If they didn't take the bus, they'd have to drive their car.

 

[RandomCoil]

Originally posted by: Vic
Public transportation is not about fuel economy. That is a common misnomer. Public transportation is about relieving traffic congestion. Otherwise, you have a bus that gets 4 mpg that drives 1000 miles or more all day every day.

You're going to have to provide a bit more data to prove that point. If that bus can average 6 passengers for all 1000 miles (a distance which sounds a bit exaggerated to me) it would be just as efficient, in terms of mpg, as those six drivers each driving a 24 mpg car -- better than most SUV's. If it can average 12 passengers, it's effectively up to 48 mpg, on par with hybrids. At the same time, removig those 6-12 cars from the road reduces congestion and gridlock, allowing traffic to move more efficiently. By centralizing the production of pollution (from multiple cars to one bus), it also becomes easier to control it through vehicle upgrades: replacing 1 bus with a hybrid is more-or-less the equivalent of all passengers upgrading as well.

But yeah, I agree that congestion is (currently) the single biggest argument in favor of PT.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Vic
Public transportation is not about fuel economy. That is a common misnomer. Public transportation is about relieving traffic congestion. Otherwise, you have a bus that gets 4 mpg that drives 1000 miles or more all day every day.

You're right in that it's to keep traffic down, but it just so happens that you also get better fuel economy too..

It would take 50 gallons of gas to drive 50 people 200 miles at 4MPG on a bus.

It would take FOUR HUNDRED gallons of gas to drive 50 people 200 miles in their own cars at 25MPG.

 

[RandomCoil]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Incorrect. In the USA, most people live outside the city in the suburbs. Most people USED to live in cities, but there has been a migration out of the cities into the suburbs.

Well, to be fair, most suburbs are technically cities, but I know what you mean. 50 years of cheap gas and inexpensive automobiles has driven the migration from dense population centers to suburban sprawl. Having $7/gallon gas tomorrow would certainly be detrimental to the US economy, however I would argue that the following would be a good, if impossible plan:

1. Require that all gas and vehicle taxes go towards funding PT and road construction/improvement.
2. Raise gases taxes significantly on an annual basis
3. Increase gas guzzler taxes on the sale of new vehicles

The goals are pretty obvious. I believe that, sooner or later, most Americans will have to figure out that living 30+ miles from work and commuting alone in a 20 mpg vehicle is not a sustainable life style -- it's simply a waste of resources and of time.

 

[cornbread]

As another member replied, think about the transport of goods in this country..
When gas prices rise, the price of everything else in this country rises as well to compensate for the transportation of goods. When prices of everything else rise, fewer people are going to travel (harming the tourist industry), people are going to become pickier and pickier about what convenience items they purchase, etc, etc, essentially harming the well-being of the world itself. It's a big chain reaction that hurts everyone, rich or poor.

 

[RandomCoil]

Cornbread:

Relying on the stability of the Middle East to keep gas prices low ain't so great either. Neither is continuously pumping money that direction. The cost of fuel for commercial/industrial transporation vs. private transportation can be easily adjusted by not applying taxes to fuel purchased for the transporation of goods. There will of course be cheating around the edges (this already happens with "farm" diesel and the the strange tax break of buying an H2), but it will still work.

As for travel and tourism, well, maybe. Direct impact to the airline could be avoided. Perhaps the impact on mental stability from NOT going on long car trips would be a plus (some Chevy Chase movies come to mind...). As for the purchase of convenience items, a steady (and continuous) increase in gas prices should lead to better long-term planning and budgeting. It may help buyers when considering whether or not they need the HEMI and whether or not they can survive on 1200 sq ft rather than 1500 sq ft if it means a shorter commute (perhaps using PT).

I agree with your points. But I think running into a sudden gas price spike (due to a shortage or the next gulf war) is more damaging than taking reasonable approaches to curbing oil usage now.

 

[Amused]

Bump for relevance to this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1581581&enterthread=y

 

[StageLeft]

I find even 70 far too slow, and for somebody in a reasonably capable car who's paying attention it is unecessarily slow. I don't personally know anybody who abides by the anemic 70 mph speed limit. Most people I know go around 80, since they are reasonably sure they would not get a ticket for it, though I know many who go quite a bit faster, all the time. Of course those who say "What's the hurry" and consider these people a public menace are clearly so bad at driving that they are the public menace if they are too scared to drive about 70.

 

[jpeyton]

75-80MPH is ideal for me.

 

[EyeMWing]

I've sped up recently; used to be pegged at EXACTLY the speed limit. Now that I know where the cops sit, though (it's PAINFULLY obvious in my stomping-grounds), I tend to run 75+ in the right lane like everyone else (SL65). And then I slow down to about 55 when I'm coming up on one of the traps. Most everyone else gets the hint, too.

Yesterday, I blew by a horse trailer with the speedo BURIED (>95) in the 3/4 ton van. I honestly didn't know it could go that fast. Even more amusing, 10 miles later, said F-350+Trailer combo blew by ME as I slowed down for a construction zone/speed trap combo.

In some states, though (PA! PA! PA!) I wish they'd go back to 55mph. Those roads are FVCKING DANGEROUSLY UNDERMAINTAINED to do any faster on. And merging into them is a challenge; the ramps are so anemic that you only get maybe 50mph out of them standing on the gas, there's no merge lane, and the totally moronic drivers there have no concept of "LET HIM MERGE!"

 

[Stark]

I'm not saying I miss the 55 speed limit, but i did notice that when "speeding" was going around 65-70, it was a lot easier to snake through traffic. Now, with the addition of all these huge SUVs and everyone trying to go 75-80 just about all you can do safely is get in a lane and follow the guy in front of you.

I also think they should make anything that gets less than 15 MPG observe the truck speed limits (55 in lots of places)... or pay some sort of gross polluter tax.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Stark
I'm not saying I miss the 55 speed limit, but i did notice that when "speeding" was going around 65-70, it was a lot easier to snake through traffic. Now, with the addition of all these huge SUVs and everyone trying to go 75-80 just about all you can do safely is get in a lane and follow the guy in front of you.

I also think they should make anything that gets less than 15 MPG observe the truck speed limits (55 in lots of places)... or pay some sort of gross polluter tax.

Your "snaking" through traffic was more dangerous.

In fact, you made the guy's point.