Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

[happycrappy]

Forum Sponsor

And that's different from your post, how? I've at least provided examples and a logical conclusion to those examples based on my experience behind the wheel.

"Very typical of an engineer" you say, and perhaps you're right. After all, the Canadian Courts recognize the opinion of a Registered Professional Engineer that is discussing a topic which he is considered an expert (I claim neither that I'm a registered professional nor an expert in this field). Do me a favour and put your bias against engineers aside for the duration of our debate... or not at all for all I care. If your only counter argument is a shot against my profession, there's no point in me responding.

Environmental. If memory serves me correctly, the speed limit was dropped during the fuel crisis as a way of reducing fuel consumption. This makes sense as the power required to overcome drag is a function of the CUBE of the velocity. That means that going from 70mph to 62mph actually decreased the power required to travel the speed limit by ~30% (1-(62/70)^3). But, going UP from 62mph to 70mph would mean an increase in power requirements of about 44% (70/62)^3. Obviously that doesn't linearly correlate to fuel consumption since there are MANY more factors (e.g. gearing, BSFC) to take into consideration. With most US states in the 65mph - 80mph range, it makes sense that auto manufacturers are gearing their vehicles for optimal fuel consumption at those speeds, so perhaps moving up to 70 mph, we won't see drastic increase in fuel consumption... But however you look at it, there will be an increase in fuel consumption and emissions. So from an environmental standpoint, there's a good reason NOT to raise the speed limit.

Safety. Anyone care to share any studies about the states that went from 55mph to 70+ mph? I'm guessing safety did not decrease (and if it did, not by much). Unless safety increased with the increase of speed, I don't see the speed argument being a supporting argument either way. For the politicians to consider the change, the safety increase would have to be somewhat substantial.

Cost. Yes, there's a cost involved with increasing the speed limit. If there's no real benefit to that cost, it's wasted money. So what is the benefit? I get to work sooner? I get to my destination sooner?

I'm not opposed to higher speed limits. But I'll be the first to admit that my desire for raising the limit is purely selfish. For the politicians to consider an increase in speed, there has to be a selling point... What's the selling point? The only arguments presented in favour of increasing the limit was that it's a "more reasonable level" (what makes it more reasonable?) and "so we don't get ticketed at 130km/h" (so, don't drive at 130km/h).

This is the most logical post by far. To add to it, my own question would be how this idea of an increase would correlate to the demographic on our highways, not whether or not it works elsewhere in the world. Weather is a factor here, as is the sheer volume and variety if traffic (the 400 series are some of the highest traveled highways in North america). I can accept that on either end of the less populated 401 would be a candidate for the increase, but would counter that the volume of truck traffic is also substantially higher in those areas. I've used these corridors extensively, and the difference in truck speeds and especially the hills to the East would be a problem.

 

[chrison]

I think it was around 1978 that we went metric and the speed limits changed. Originally the 400 series highways were 70 mph which converts to 112.6 kph and most drove at 80 mph which converts to 128 kph. Secondary roads were posted 60 mph (96.5). I was driving a 425 c.i.(7.0 litre) Olds with drum brakes! Move on 35 years and the speed limits are way less with vastly superior and safer vehicles. Nobody has mentioned the natural speed that all roads possess which is a combination of engineering design and natural terrain. Ever notice certain areas on roads up north where the traffic slows down? Probably the road narrows or becomes tree-lined or maybe winds through a rock cut with no change in speed limit people drive at a comfortable pace. There will always be knobheads that race or drive too fast for the conditions as there will always be people that drive at less than the posted limit because they are comfotable with that whether they are towing trailers or whatever. I think that if the limit on the 401 was 120 kph that most drivers would still run about 120 not 140 because that wouldn't be a comfortable speed for most drivers. Cops would still be kept busy booking the real speeders and we can concentrate on traffic around us not keeping our eyes peeled for speed traps.

EXACTLY! This and actual speed limit reduction details are mentioned on our site www.stop100.ca (support us on facebook if you choose to, the link is on there) - get the exact date from there too. Heck, here it is : Speed limit was reduced from 70 mph to 60 mph on Feb 1 1976. Never brought back up which is one of the FEW reasons why this proposal makes sense IMO, despite the few votes to the contrary. If people are so happy to be robbed off a fairer driving privilege (like they were in 1976), I wonder what they'd say if Queens Park decided to reduce 400 speed limit to 80km/h tomorrow. And observe it. Would the critics finally get it and understand why our highways were built for higher speed and why 112 km/h was once legislated FOR A DARN GOOD REASON (like vast majority of people wanting to drive a hair bit faster worry-free), and why with drastically better cars nowadays having 100 km/h limit seems like a total scam (scam in terms of tickets, demerit points, insurance hikes, stressed out drivers 'endangered' from 120 km/h and up) and why other jurisdictions around the world are raising their speed limits to allow people more freedom on the road?

nor has one been made FOR raising the limit.

I'll try to keep it REALLY simple: after the speed limit change to 120 km/h + smaller, predicable tolerance of, say 10-15km/h - ALL DRIVERS (yes, even those who question the idea) are safe up to about 130 and can focus on the road. No more tickets, demerit points, insurance rate hikes or uncertainty (ie. will I get slammed for doing 117, 125 or 130?). Clear rules for the DRIVERS and the COPS - more predictable tolerance, not all over the map like it is right now. If you still think it's a bad deal and you'd rather stay at 118 or fear for your life and wallet at 128 - simply vote us down at www.stop100.ca - choose the option: 100 km/h must stay.

I drive 1000km/week going to and from London and can confirm it's a 3 lane highway thing, more pronounced the closer you get to the GTA. You don't see a lot of lane hogs on the 403 past Hamilton to Woodstock.

I will always blame it on 3 things: Poor/Cheap testing standards, no enforcement, and good old Canadian politeness because anywhere else in the world you'd be getting tail-gaited, horn blared and swiped into a concrete barrier for bad etiquette.

Following the change, I would plea with OPP in GTA to shift some enforcement attention (AND TICKET REVENUES, no sarcasm...) from speeding (which won't be as significant and widespread as it is today, obviously) to left lane passing only, aggressive driving, improper lane changes, etc. I am sure they could get A LOT of revenue from that to make up from the lost speeding citations. Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? COPS WOULD BE SOOOO RESPECTED ONCE AGAIN. I would personally stop behind one and thank them for pulling over that left lane hugger. Wouldn't highway enforcement cops want some respect? I think they get NONE as it is right now. People simply fear and hate them (oh, did I mention slam on their brakes on their sight)?

I'm Liking it! our support is in!

Thanks, each LIKE matters. We want to spread the word. This will not end in a simple FAN page on facebook , trust me... Media and the Gov't will be contacted with large number of identifiable supporters. Granted the poll will continue yielding numbers like we have today: 88% in favour of the change, 12% keep the status quo.

I am just saying he won my vote, I'm not interested in convincing anyone either way. The amount of backlash on this thread against chrisons proposal I would think would and should be warranted by a submission of a few decent arguments in favour of keeping the speed limits as they are.

Well - I've said that before, some guys will always question and dispute the idea but at the end of the day, NOBODY would mind NOT breaking the law (with small tolerance) at 125 or 130 km/h (despite ALL the 'other problems' that they currently 'see' that causing). This campaign should be called :NO TICKET IN ONTARIO AT 125-130 KM/H. Maybe that would appeal more to those critical of our proposal.

The speed limit should be kept as it is because there is nothing to gain by changing it.

see above. Again - it's mostly about your wallet and peace of mind if you enjoy 120-130 km/h. Trust me, I have spoken to some cops who said they WILL ticket you at 120. Some say they love driving at 125 themselves. Lack of clarity...??


OK, so let's try it once again for some newcomers or those sobering up from the weekend beer:

READ MORE ON THE TOPIC AND SUPPORT US ON FACEBOOK (LIKE) at www.facebook.com/stop100

 

[Red695]

Your point about the environmental factor is acceptable...but you should really dumb it down more if you are trying to sell it to the general populace.
The safety point is highly debatable.
Cost could be averted and also more revenue could be generated easily from increased fines for other road infractions for those drivers who exhibit less aptitude for the rules of the road.
Bravo EngineerJoe, I commend thee and hope you didn't have to proof read that diatribe too many times.

 

[jc100]

Lol...you keep picking speeds at random...112, 120, 130 kmh.

How's the onion doing?

 

[happycrappy]

With regards to the limit in the 70's; what was the traffic volume back then? It would pale in comparison to today. Also, what about the speed variance to vehicles such as LCV trucks (90kph max), people that WON'T exceed 100, virtually all trailered vehicles, etc. Even before bill 172, knowing that a potential of 50kph difference in speed between vehicles was a really bad idea. Considering LOTS of trucks on hills and merging would only be at 80kph, that doesn't seem too appealing

 

[danarchy]

OP, head over to clublexus.com and my.is. You'll find plenty of speed hungry people there. The only hitch is that they lumped Canada into one forum so not everyone will be from Ontario.

 

[chrison]

I'm not opposed to higher speed limits. But I'll be the first to admit that my desire for raising the limit is purely selfish. For the politicians to consider an increase in speed, there has to be a selling point... What's the selling point? The only arguments presented in favour of increasing the limit was that it's a "more reasonable level" (what makes it more reasonable?) and "so we don't get ticketed at 130km/h" (so, don't drive at 130km/h).

Joe, you are overlooking one simple fact. GTA traffic (when non-congested) does not move at 100-120 today! It moves between 115-140 (left lane of 407 and 401 express in the east frequently goes that fast). So, if you're saying to millions of drivers "don't go 130" DESPITE the fact that going that fast (and much faster) still creates relatively safe roads according to the MTO (check their site), then you're asking something totally out of line with reality (and common sense). Shouldn't something that's highly illegal yet still quite safe be made legal rather than telling everyone to slow down for no apparent reason?

 

[mjavor]

I can't afford to drive faster than 100km/h.

Also, what about those poor souls who can't even muster up 100km/h. If they raise the max speed, they will need to raise the minimum speed as well.

 

[chrison]

I can't afford to drive faster than 100km/h.

Also, what about those poor souls who can't even muster up 100km/h. If they raise the max speed, they will need to raise the minimum speed as well.

Trucks are also governed to 105 km/h. When I tow heavy load behind my SUV, I also do not exceed 100 km/h and gladly stay behind the trucks. Limit for heavy trucks and light cars DOES NOT need to be the same (many EU countries and US states practice highly varying speed limits between vehicle types).

READ MORE ON THE TOPIC AND SUPPORT US ON FACEBOOK (LIKE) at www.facebook.com/stop100

 

[danarchy]

I can't afford to drive faster than 100km/h.

So don't. That's what the right lane is for.

Also, what about those poor souls who can't even muster up 100km/h. If they raise the max speed, they will need to raise the minimum speed as well.

They shouldn't even be on the highway today if they can't get to 100.

 

[EngineerJoe]

Your point about the environmental factor is acceptable...but you should really dumb it down more if you are trying to sell it to the general populace.

Perhaps, but most people understand that higher speeds = increased fuel consumption. The math was there to support that my argument was not simply an opinion.

The safety point is highly debatable.

Agreed. I personally don't think it's less safe to raise the speed limit, BUT without clear and concise data to support my last statement, it can't be successfully be used as an argument to raise the limit.

Cost could be averted and also more revenue could be generated easily from increased fines for other road infractions for those drivers who exhibit less aptitude for the rules of the road.

Perhaps, but don't give politicians the idea that we are okay with stiffer penalties. They'll implement this and forget about raising the speed limit... especially with McIdiot at the reins.


Chrison, the website presents 6 arguments for raising the speed limit...

In the late 1960s and early 1970s speed limit was 70mph (112 km/h) which was then reduced to 60 mph (98 km/h) in 1976 from political pressure caused by oil embargo of '73.

Done as a way to reduce fuel consumption and vehicular emissions. Even with today's technology, increasing the limit will increase fuel (or energy) consumption and vehicular emissions.

100 km/h is one of the lowest highway speed limits in the world. Many European countries and US states allow 120-130 km/h with high safety records.

Most, if not all, countries around the world are not Canada. Our vast land, weather conditions, and varying population densities make Canada unique enough to determine our own speed conditions. Whatever we're doing seems to be working, our transportation system is one of the safest in the world.

Many countries and states have recently increased freeway speed limits to 120-130 km/h (United Kingdom, Kansas, Texas, Utah) in recognition of real safety advantages.

You don't actually list any "advantages" other than stating "little to no negative effect on safety". Technically speaking "little to no negative effect" is not the same as "advantages". This statement may support that there's no drawback to increase the limit, but it also says there's no advantage.

Despite much higher practiced speeds of 120-140 km/h, Ontario highways remain one of the safest in North America, according to the Ministry of Transportation.

So if we bring the limit up to 120km/h, will traffic flow increase to the 140km/h - 160km/h range? If so, will it be as safe at those speeds? The speed limit of roads is determined to be ~85% of the speed at which traffic could flow "safely". This "safety factor" is something you'll find in A LOT of properly designed components and systems (S.F. is not always 15%.) See my point below for more information. (This argument also speaks to your last post).

Ontario drivers are criminalized by unreasonably low speed limit, face the risk of ticket fines, demerit point, insurance rate increases and license suspensions on a daily basis.

Except for Dangerous Driving and D.U.I., driving infractions are not criminal. The average driver will increase their speed if the limit changes. Drive any rural road where the speed limit changes between 50km/h, 60km/h and 80km/h and you'll notice that most drivers keep their speed relative to the speed limit the same. (From my experience, that number is typically anywhere from 0% to 20% higher), but that value stays with the driver. What changes that % isn't the speed limit, it's the enforcement.

Increase in speed limit will not significantly change current driving patterns. Most drivers drive at prudent speeds regardless of speed limit posted.

Prudent speeds? Didn't you just point out that a lot of drivers are already over the limit?

I want higher speed limits... I really do. But I can't support your position because your arguments are not solid.

 

[EngineerJoe]

Joe, you are overlooking one simple fact. GTA traffic (when non-congested) does not move at 100-120 today! It moves between 115-140 (left lane of 407 and 401 express in the east frequently goes that fast). So, if you're saying to millions of drivers "don't go 130" DESPITE the fact that going that fast (and much faster) still creates relatively safe roads according to the MTO (check their site), then you're asking something totally out of line with reality (and common sense). Shouldn't something that's highly illegal yet still quite safe be made legal rather than telling everyone to slow down for no apparent reason?

For the record, I'm not saying "don't go 130km/h" because I believe it's unsafe, I'm saying "don't go 130km/h" if you don't want a ticket for going 130km/h.

 

[caboose56]

I don't think it's GTA thing, I think it's any highway with more than 2 lanes in either direction. People tend to drive in the 2nd lane from the left wherever they are, for some idiotic reason. It just so happens that that idiocy puts them in the right lane when there are only 2 lanes.

Folks from London can confirm, I believe the 401 is 3 lanes each way through there. Do drivers generally stay to the right?

You hit the nail on the head. It's three lanes in each direction from London to Mississauga now and yes most people drive in the middle lane. I'm a relatively slow driver in my car, i set the cruise around 110 and rock out in the right lane. I'm usually part of a small minority that actually drives in the right lane. Even truck drivers like to camp in the middle lane for some reason.

IMO this is almost as oblivious and stupid as camping in the left lane. Instead of allowing two lanes to their left for faster traffic they only allow one. For drivers doing 110-115 that means a lot of people are going through a bit of a bottle-neck into the left lane to pass them. Either that or drivers will use the vacant right lane to pass the middle lane campers. It's not the ideal choice but if you come up behind someone in the middle lane and there's a string of 30 cars in the left lane overtaking them it'll be hard for you to squeeze in. A vacant right lane is an attractive option. It happens to me sometimes. I'll have the cruise set at 110 and someone in the middle lane is doing 105. I could either stay in the right lane and undertake them, or i'd have to change lanes 4 times to overtake them on the left. I admit that sometimes I'll just stay in the right lane.

The speed limit should be kept as it is because there is nothing to gain by changing it.

Is the juice worth the sqeeze? No.

 

[The Last Boyscout]

Changing the speed limit won't change a thing. It's 100 now and people do 120. Change it to 130 and people will do 150. It's our nature and habit.

 

[caboose56]

Changing the speed limit won't change a thing. It's 100 now and people do 120. Change it to 130 and people will do 150. It's our nature and habit.

I doubt it. Maybe at first but for the most part when people realize they're going through $40 more in gas a week they'll lose interest in driving that fast and go back to the same speed they used to drive at.

I know for a fact that if the speed limit went up to 120 I would still drive 110.

Sit down and actually do the math. If you're on the highway for 60km, how much time do you save by doing 120 instead of 110? It's under 3 minutes.

 

[Jayv]

I doubt it. Maybe at first but for the most part when people realize they're going through $40 more in gas a week they'll lose interest in driving that fast and go back to the same speed they used to drive at.

I know for a fact that if the speed limit went up to 120 I would still drive 110.

Sit down and actually do the math. If you're on the highway for 60km, how much time do you save by doing 120 instead of 110? It's under 3 minutes.

HTA 172 currently 149KM/H, would change to 169KM/H.

If the speed limit was adjusted to 120km/h I could honestly see the 49 over, being changed to 30 over on both highway and non highway roads.

 

[Cat13]

If the speed limit was adjusted to 120km/h I could honestly see the 49 over, being changed to 30 over on both highway and non highway roads.

Didnt think of that but now that you brought it up I can completely see that being what they would do. Perhaps also up the fine for being caught speeding.

 

[caboose56]

HTA 172 currently 149KM/H, would change to 169KM/H.

If the speed limit was adjusted to 120km/h I could honestly see the 49 over, being changed to 30 over on both highway and non highway roads.

Possibly.

Don't put the cart before the horse though. The speed limit isn't going to get changed anytime soon so it's a moot point.

 

[Jayv]

Possibly.

Don't put the cart before the horse though. The speed limit isn't going to get changed anytime soon so it's a moot point.

I agree with the speed limit, not going to happen and even if it does it's going to take some time before it becomes law.

The 49 over being decreased to 30 over i can see that happening, just need another trumped up street racing charge to hit the media.

 

[DJM]

I remember the Ontario Government (PC's) were looking at raising the speed limit to 120 on the Windsor-London corridor in the early 2000's. As luck would have it a spate of single-vehicle fatalities happened on that section which pretty much put an end to the idea.

Most of those were drivers hitting the soft shoulder and over-correcting, causing a roll-over. No doubt the slow speed and dead straitness allowed them to lull or attempt to multi-task with the consequences that followed.

Arguments for raising were the hwy's straightness, moderate traffic volumes and overall good condition.

Arguments against was the soft shoulders, lack of centre medians and driver quality.

I know the shoulder and median issues have been mostly addressed.

Forum Sponsor