Urbanist should push for higher speed limits on highways -- and lower ones in cities. Unless, of course, [they] just hate cars.

The transit planning discussion is interesting when you think about dan's article on new buildings yesterday.

Speaking of circulator changes, when did they change the transfer window down to two hours?

by charlie on Sep 14, 2012 8:48 am • link • report

It's frustrating when GGTT articles take a broad stance on a specific case. There are incentives for toll roads being available. If they are not open and more convenient, there is no incentive for motorists to use them.

by selxic on Sep 14, 2012 9:09 am • link • report

Yo dawg, I heard you like cameras, so I put in cameras to watch your cameras so you could watch people while you watch people.

by Tim on Sep 14, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by nbluth on Sep 14, 2012 9:29 am • link • report

The Insurance Institute has been pushing for years that higher speed limits lead to more deaths, without having anything in the way to prove that. Texas already had the highest speed limits in the land, yet the death rate was lower than many other states--and this, despite the overwhelming number of pick-up trucks, which are far less stable at speed and therefore inherently more likely to crash as it is. The reason is simple--the Lone Star state is filled with long, straight highways barren of wildlife hazards like you might find in a Montana.

by Circle Thomas on Sep 14, 2012 9:29 am • link • report

Whatever one thinks of the merits of resident-only parking, I'm very surprised that everyone on the block has to sign off, as opposed to some majority rule. Rather anti-democratic.

by ah on Sep 14, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

Urbanist should push for higher speed limits on highways -- and lower ones in cities. Unless, of course, you just hate cars.

I agree with this in principle (if it works for the autobahn in germany then why not?)

But I'd rather just not have to be accused of hating cars every time I make a suggestion that may priortize safety or livability over through-put.

by drumz on Sep 14, 2012 9:33 am • link • report

*note, I don't know if it works well in germany or why our roads are different and would/wouldn't allow it. My question wasn't entirely rhetorical.

by drumz on Sep 14, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

@Drumz; yep, basically the german model. Not that the autobahn has unlimted speed anymore, and I don't think unlimited speed is a good idea in the US.

But exactly how higher speed limits on highways have a negative impact on city life? I don't see it.

by charlie on Sep 14, 2012 9:42 am • link • report

Who watches the cameras watching the cameras watching the people?

Bad jokes aside: David, I LOVE the new home-grown captchas!

by Watchmen on Sep 14, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

@drumz - the Autobahn has fewer and fewer places with no speed limit. Even then, there's a recommendation of no more than ~80mph.

And the US has been moving in that direction--many interstate highways in less populous areas in the west have speed limits of 75 or 80 mph. That said, the quality of pavement on autobahns is generally better than that here, and overall design better for higher speeds. I've driven the autobahn and the Montanabahn at the "unlimited" speed limits in place at the time, and no question I felt safer on the autobahn.

by ah on Sep 14, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

@drumz German roads are different because Europeans go through extensive driver training, the likes of which most Americans can't even fathom. It's doubtful many Americans could even pass a German driver's test.

by Circle Thomas on Sep 14, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

@ah, and generations of drivers who still understand lane discpline.

Well, at least we're not China.

by charlie on Sep 14, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

Circle Thomas,

Duh! They'd have to read German!

I'm sorry. I had too.

by drumz on Sep 14, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

TX needs to talk to KS, b/c KS can suck it.

by thump on Sep 14, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

@ ah and others:the Autobahn has fewer and fewer places with no speed limit.

That's because of terrible maintenance of the German infrastructure. Autobahn with no speed limit is not cheap. You need long, relatively straight stretches of clean, flat highway. There are a lot of constraints that would not work in the US. Perfect maintenance is one. Very expensive. Absence of wildlife is another. Perhaps in TX, but not achievable in any state with deer.

That said, there are wondeful stretches of Autobahn. The A3 between Frankfurt and Bonn is amazing. As is the A31 north of Oberhausen. Or the A2 between Hannover and Magdeburg.

One thing you learn quickly in Germany is that when they put a speed limit on, you'd better follow it. On the rural stretches, it usually means road damages that will bounce you off the road, and near urban areas, there are usually too many exits and entries to go fast safely.

by Jasper on Sep 14, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

"near urban areas, there are usually too many exits and entries to go fast safely."

Interesting point. In fact, putting too many exits on rural highways is a major cause of sprawl.

Imagine that argument. "Sure, we can build you an exit. But we'll have to cut the speed limit there from 85 to 55. Still want it?"

by charlie on Sep 14, 2012 10:10 am • link • report

Texas has not "raised" the speed limit on the road in question unless you consider raising it from zero to be a raise. It is a brand new toll road that is not scheduled to open until November.

by rextrex on Sep 14, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

I'm all for higher speed limits on some highways, only if our drivers ed system is reformed and is no longer the complete joke that it is now, and the laws and rules of the road are mercilessly enforced. I have some European friends that couldn't get their licenses because the test was too hard and they couldn't afford to take it over and over again because it also was prohibitively expensive. Driving is treated as a privilege, not a right.

Going back to the German example...many German cars didn't even come with cupholders until recently because drivers shouldn't be distracted while getting from point A to point B. But here in the US, we treat cars like home offices...

by MM on Sep 14, 2012 10:22 am • link • report

"near urban areas, there are usually too many exits and entries to go fast safely."
Interesting point. In fact, putting too many exits on rural highways is a major cause of sprawl.

Imagine that argument. "Sure, we can build you an exit. But we'll have to cut the speed limit there from 85 to 55. Still want it?"

I'll allow it. Though the danger is the fewer exits may need to be upgraded more (taking up more money/land) to take up the extra volume anyway. But it's also what makes the NJ turnpike bearable.

by drumz on Sep 14, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

@ MM: I have some European friends that couldn't get their licenses because the test was too hard and they couldn't afford to take it over and over again because it also was prohibitively expensive.

Getting a driver's license in Europe can be very expensive. I paid the equivalent of about $1500 10-15 years ago in the Netherlands. Basically, you need 30-40 hours of driver's ed in a car before they let you go up for the exam. And that's 30-40 hours @ €40-50 per hour. Add to that the theory exam (€34.57) and the driving exam (€96.34) and add up fast. First timers have a passing rate of 40-50%, i.e. half of all people fail. And, passing your exam only gives you the right to actually apply for a license with the government...

In Germany, it's harder. In France, the first-year driver's need to be accompanied by someone else, AND ride in a car marked with a special sticker so that other drivers know they are dealing with a novice driver.

by Jasper on Sep 14, 2012 10:58 am • link • report

charlie, i think i've seen you asking about the transfer window on the circulator several times. the window was widened to 3 hours for both WMATA and circulator/local bus partners that use smartrip on Jan 4, 2009 in conjunction with the elimination of paper transfers. on or abouts June 27, 2010, the transfer window was reduced to the original 2 hours for WMATA and circulator, assuming people had adjusted to the change. it might have taken a while to update the circulator brochures/maps since they aren't redone immediately unless there's a big service change.

by bt on Sep 14, 2012 11:00 am • link • report

@BT: thanks. 2010 or 2011. I know last summer I was gettiing the three hour window on circulator. However, for as long as I remember it was a two hour window on WMATA buses.

by charlie on Sep 14, 2012 11:08 am • link • report

85mph is insane because its a sign to motorists that its safe to drive that fast when its not, depending on what type of car you have and what type of driver you are. Many econocars like the Kia Rio, Smart car, Toyota Yaris, whatever, are much less controllable at those speeds. Ditto for many SUVS.

Here in Maryland drivers are notorious for totally (and I mean totally, yours truly included) disregarding speed limits, particularly on Interstates. I would estimate that on I-270 only 10% of drivers actually do 55mph or less consistently (a quarter of which have VA tags). The staties don't even have to look for speeders, they just point their radar gun at whatever color car they want to pull over and go. The thing is that most drivers in this situation are used to driving this fast, know the risk in driving at these speeds, and know the capabilities of their vehicles.

by King Terrapin on Sep 14, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

@ ah

How is rule by unanimity inherently less democratic than rule by mere majority?

by onelasttime on Sep 14, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report

@Onelasttime

This does not seem to be rule by unanimity. It seems to be rule by 1. When one person can hold up the entire thing, that ceases to be a democracy. At least in the Senate, it takes 40 idiots from the south and the fly-over states.

by Kyle-w on Sep 14, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report

Getting a driver's license in Europe can be very expensive.

That's because Europeans have very little tolerance for risk on the road and don't mind regulatory costs that we'd find totally overbearing in this country. Driving is not a particularly dangerous activity. Accidents (driving and otherwise) are only the fifth leading cause of death and driving accidents are only about 1/4 of all accidents. And drunk driving accounts for 1/3 of driving deaths. So the list of annual deaths is:

1. Heart Disease -- 600K
2. Cancer -- 600K
...
5. Accidents -- 120K. Of which driving -- 33K. Of which caused by drunk driving -- 11K

So, there's no reason to make obtaining a driver's license cost over $1500 and require months of jumping over various regulatory hurdles. By far, the biggest risk in driving is drunk drivers and all the costs associated with obtaining a license do little to prevent drunk driving.

by Falls Church on Sep 14, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

US driving deaths: 32K.

by charlie on Sep 14, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report

85mph is insane because its a sign to motorists that its safe to drive that fast when its not, depending on what type of car you have and what type of driver you are.

85mph on a straight and flat desert highway in Texas is safer than the speed that everyone drives at through the "roller coaster" section of the Beltway or many other local highways...even if you're driving a Kia Rio or SUV. So there's nothing insane about the 85mph speed limit unless everyone is insane...which isn't really insanity because sanity is a relative measure.

by Falls Church on Sep 14, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report

Here's another interesting stat. 8% of heart attacks are caused by sitting in heavy traffic

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20090313/traffic-triples-heart-attack-risk

Your chance of death after a heart attach is 20%. So about 10K deaths per year can be attributed to simply sitting in heavy traffic, vs. 21K deaths caused by non-drunk-driving accidents.

Put in that light, driving is not the terrifyingly dangerous activity some people make it out to be...unless you're sitting gridlocked in traffic!

by Falls Church on Sep 14, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

@onelasttime - I'm happy to have you point me towards an argument that it is democratic to have a single person exercise effective veto authority over the wishes of another.

Yes, the US has a Constitution that protects certain minority rights (i.e., harder to vote away), but those are generally considered antidemocratic, but tolerable, if not desirable exceptions to the general principles of democracy. Parking spaces hardly seem among those inalienable rights, however.

by ah on Sep 14, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report

@ Falls Church:Driving is not a particularly dangerous activity.

That is your judgement, and not that of the 30k people that died in traffic last year. Nor that of their families and friends. Neither is it the judgement of the more than hundred thousand people that get seriously injured in traffic.

Oddly, when 3k people died in a terror attack, this country started two wars, with twice the casualties on its own side.

I don't like wars very much. War on terror, war on drugs, war on Christmas: all wasted money and breath. But a good fight to get traffic safer would be very welcome. More enforcement of traffic rules, better design of roads, more efficient transportation in general. If only the money wasted in those other wars could be spent on this useful stuff.

by Jasper on Sep 14, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

I'm from Michigan, where people enjoy fast driving and you're unlikely to get pulled over unless you're doing over 85mph.

Despite this I usually don't drive faster than 80 when I go home, because in most cars fuel economy takes a nosedive when your speed gets over 75mph. It's a significant added cost for not much return. (Your mileage may vary - 75mph seems to be the inflection point in my car, at least if the trip computer is to be believed.)

You also have to pay a lot more attention to the road once you get up above 80, and that just wears you down over the course of a long drive.

by Phil on Sep 14, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report

Euro road systems work at extremely high speeds compared to us for several reasons.

1. European road systems typically do not have left exits. Period.
2. The drivers actually know what they are doing and take it seriously. Few here do.
3. Consequences for poor driving, or driving while under influence, are extremely dire.

There is a culture of taking driving seriously. If you drive slow, you stay right. If you drive a truck, you are required and face extreme fines for being in left lanes. If you touch alcohol, you don't drive. You drive with two hands on the wheel. These aren't rules that bend depending on circumstance.

@King Terrapin, 100% agreement. I270 is civil. 55 is unreasonable, so it basically is just not enforced.

In my opinion, MD is great for highway driving. Travel speeds on highway are reasonable and there are few police, and for the most part people stay over on the right. VA on the other hand...frustrating to say the least.

by isThisAppropriateName on Sep 14, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report

@isThisAppropriateName: If you drive slow, you stay right.

That's actually required by law. You are to drive the most to the right that you can. Most US states have no such laws. I remember seeing "stay to the right" signs in NY.

There is a culture of taking driving seriously.

I am not so sure of that. There is a governmental culture of making it hard to get a driver's license. I am not so sure the public takes things that serious. The more south you get, the crazier people drive.

In my opinion, MD is great for highway driving.

I disagree. The MD-side of the Beltway is way crazier than the VA side. Everything in and between DC and Baltimore is a mess, including I-270. I-70 from Frederick west is ok, but often busy [I don't know about I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore, never driven it]. US-50 to Baltimore (I-595) is ugly and often congested. I-95 north of Baltimore is ok, when not too busy. I-68 is fantastic and gorgeous.

In VA, I-95 from DC to Richmond and I-64 east of Richmond are a mess. I-64 west of Richmond is nice. I-81 is very decent, if you don't get stuck between too many trucks. I-85 is boring and straight, but rarely causes trouble. And I-77 is just gorgeous. US-29 south of Charlottesville (to become I-785) is also gorgeous.

In short, northern and eastern VA are a mess. The rest is fine, and south-western VA is gorgeous driving.

Personally, I think WV and NC have great highways. Well maintained, great views, never too busy.

by Jasper on Sep 14, 2012 7:48 pm • link • report

When I had a car, it was a large performance car. It sat low to the ground, had a nice wide stance, it was heavy and stable, and it had a powerful engine. I opened it up a few times on un-crowded, smooth highways in West Virginia, and it was fun, but ultimately stressful. After a few minutes, I was sick of being so vigilant and slowed down a bit. More time to respond to stuff, if necessary, is usually a good thing. I was by no means going slow after slowing down, just a more reasonable speed. Anything above 80 just puts me on edge, even in a car designed to handle those speeds, even on safe, open roads. What just kils me is, recently, I've been on CROWDED highways under less-than-ideal conditions (darkness, mostly), and people are just cruising along at 80 like it's no big deal, with maybe 3 seconds of space between them and other cars. Um, no...that's NOT safe, prudent, or RATIONAL. Slamming into something at 80 is very likely to kill you, and becomes more likely to happen when your field of vision is limited by something (rain, darkness, OTHER NEARBY CARS, etc.) and you're a mere 30 or so feet away from other fallible human beings ALSO moving along at 80 MPH.

Part of the problem with raising speed limits is our culture of giving drivers grace over the speed limit. If the speed limit is 65, people will drive 70 or 75, at least. If it's 85, expect to find some people pushing 100. If speed limits were properly enforced, there wouldn't be a problem with raising many speed limits a bit. So long as we're going to assume that it is both safe and reasonable to go a little over the speed limit (I understand a small grace since I'd prefer people look at the road rather than stare at the speedometer, but I actually take issue with the idea that 10 over the speed limit is a "little," nowhere in the U.S. is 10 over the speed limit less than 12% over the posted speed limit), we continue to prove that we're not worthy of higher speed limits.

And, of course, gas mileage is a consideration. My big performance car started to guzzle over 70 (and I babied the poop out of that car, so it was working as efficiently as possible otherwise). Many other cars start to lose efficiency around 80.

by Ms. D on Sep 15, 2012 5:01 pm • link • report

@ Ms D:Many other cars start to lose efficiency around 80.

American cars can't go as fast as their European equivalents. I am not sure how this works, but it must be something in the engine performance settings. Any engineer around who knows this?

However, American cars won't go much more than 80-90 at all. European cars all do. Even the smallest thing. Most go to 100mph easily.

Remember, speed limits are higher all over Europe. Germany has no speed limits on part of their system, but the speed limit speed in most countries is 120-140kmh, i.e. 75-85 mph.

One of the reasons why driving is so relaxing is so soothing in the US is a combination of polite drivers, wide roads and low speed limits. Driving in Europe is much more stressful because drivers are much more aggressive, speed limits are higher and roads a narrower.

If you wanna feel how a narrow high speed road feels, drive from The Plains to Halfway, VA. Try to make it to the speed limit (55) there. You're good if you can. Then realize that every country road in France is like that.

by Jasper on Sep 16, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

@Jasper, I think it mostly the automatic gearings which are being optimized for fuel efficiency around 55 or 60 rather than high speed performance.

Plenty of American cars go that fast. Mustang, Corvettes, Buick Regal (which is just an opel), chargers.

I had a very hard time getting my Fiat 500 or smartcar up to 90. Let alone my old Audi 4000 back in the day.

by charlie on Sep 17, 2012 8:51 am • link • report

The speed is a non-issue. That particular road is safe to drive above 85mph and driving at 85 will be allowed. Driving on roads with speed limits above 75 may surprise some here. Generally, even if speed is not strictly enforced on those roads, people will be settle on a slower speed just as they will settle on a faster speed on highways with low speed limits.

by selxic on Sep 17, 2012 10:37 am • link • report