Should I-17 speed limit be raised to 60 MPH? (Phoenix, Glendale: home, construction)

[locolobo13]

Looks like I'm in the minority. I say raise it to 65 on all valley freeways. Oh well.

[desertskies]

Originally Posted by miamiman

Until the 17 is rebuilt, the speed limit should stay at 55. Most urban freeways in major cities have speed limits of 55 or lower. There is even a portion of I-70 in the Kansas City area where the speed limit briefly drops to 35. Many downtown freeways in the US were built in the early 1960s with a design speed of 55 MPH or less. Just because cars are designed to travel faster now and our speed limits are generally higher doesn't mean that roads designed for moderate speed traffic should be adjusted upward. The same people crying for speed limit to be adjusted upward would be the first to sue ADOT when they or their family members fly off of a curve after going too fast.

As others have said, most everyone goes over the speed limit anyway. Some people allow themselves to go 10 over at all times. If our limits were raised to 60 or 65, some would be going at least 70 or 75, which isn't very safe during peak travel times or heavy traffic events on the 17.

I added the emphasis, key being "built in the 1960s".
I simply would have said I-17 is/was not designed for faster speed, especially between McDowell Rd. and Glendale Ave.

[NotQuiteNative]

There's a speed limit on I-17?

[mjd2k]

It should be raised to 65. (You mean it isn't 65?)

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by observer53

Disagree, based on the above posts. That stretch is totally different than every other freeway in the Valley--- the deep channel, steep on and off ramps, narrow or nonexistent shoulders. Even as it comes out of the channel, the ramps are shorter than in the newer areas. That, and the pavement is not in the shape that the newer roads are. There's already more wrecks on that stretch than the rest of the freeways in the Valley, I suspect. For that stretch, 55 is plenty. 75 north of Dunlap? Still too congested. And please, no 80 MPH anywhere. Raising speed limits with gas prices as they are is a whole separate issue, but doesn't make any more sense.

The problem is that the 17 can't be widened any further unless they somehow remove the frontage roads, so it will always be a narrow freeway in comparison to most of the others. There were plans a few years ago to eventually build a deck from Dunlap south to the I10 stack. Somehow I doubt that will ever happen ... especially given ADOTs record of mis managing funds, delays, and plentiful excuses.

Even with that, there is no valid reason why speed limits can't be raised on all Valley freeways. Admittedly, it is pretty difficult to even drive 35 or 40 MPH during rush hour on the freeways many times ... but during non congested times, most everybody drives well over 65 MPH safely, especially with our so called "perfect sunny weather" that we have much of the time. We don't have the inclement conditions which demand slower driving as in other parts of the nation. And please don't lump gas prices with speed limits. Many of us hate the increased prices, but still do just fine with gas mileage at rapid speeds.

[Bondurant]

I'm not a fan of speed limits on highways. Speed limits are one aspect of the Nanny State that most will accept as a rule to "save the children" or "keep us safe". Oddly enough most do not comply. I rarely drive the limit. I worry more about slow drivers entering the lane more than anything else. In tricky areas I will drive slower. It's common sense. I don't need a sign or nanny law to remind me.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

I'm not a fan of speed limits on highways. Speed limits are one aspect of the Nanny State that most will accept as a rule to "save the children" or "keep us safe". Oddly enough most do not comply. I rarely drive the limit. I worry more about slow drivers entering the lane more than anything else. In tricky areas I will drive slower. It's common sense. I don't need a sign or nanny law to remind me.

I disagree, we need speed limit zones as a way to balance the traffic.

People who drive too fast or too slow are the menaces in traffic and they can be ticketed for being a risk to other drivers.

They are not obeying the law, and these knuckleheads would be driving at whatever speed they want on the freeways and be perfectly legal without speed limits.

[pandaundercover]

I suppose the 55 limit is appropriate...during rush hour, or near it when everyone starts merging around. anytime I've used the 17, it's been well beyond rush hour, and going 65 is no biggee. The 51 also has a 55 limit, and yet again, I've never really been on it when it's been busy, and 65 is no biggee. IF you can go 65 safely, then go for it, but beware cops will be watching for you for some easy city cash. But overall, any speed limit someone goes should be with the consideration of others in mind. Too many people drive selfishy and don't care who they put in danger.

[adriver]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

I disagree, we need speed limit zones as a way to balance the traffic.

People who drive too fast or too slow are the menaces in traffic and they can be ticketed for being a risk to other drivers.

They are not obeying the law, and these knuckleheads would be driving at whatever speed they want on the freeways and be perfectly legal without speed limits.

Please tell me the last time you saw a driver get pulled over for going too slow? I personally go about 2-5mph over because its what I think I can get away with. It may not sound like much, but when I do; I usually weave through traffic, and if you can get to the front of the jam, its nearly always some ignorant driver whos going to slow for the left lane. There usually old or on the phone, and there usually driving a big pick-em-up. The problem is; thats what they have in mind when they set speed limits. If "fast vehicles" had there own lane/toll road/elevated roadway... with speed limits based on a few rules that we are SUPPOSED to be following anyways, such as; THE LEFT LANE IS FOR PASSING, when the HOV lane is not HOV it is the left lane, and dont go faster than what you can see, swerve, or stop away from, then slow down are a few. If then; we would be able to have accelerated travel thats not dictated by your tires, large turning radius, or the over-loaded hay bails, but instead allow the select group who can prove with further in-depth testing that there abilities and vehicle meet exceeded standards and to what degree. Then you could justify increasing speeds. Those of us who want to speed need to be able to pay for it before a ticket, by having advanced driving techniques training and testing, and slightly more in-depth vehicle testing. We wont be allowed to speed until the govt can figure out how to give us high-speed licenses and registration.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by pandaundercover

F you can go 65 safely, then go for it, but beware cops will be watching for you for some easy city cash.

The city police are not generally the ones patrolling the freeways, it's the DPS.