# texas to allow 85MPH driving



## amtrakwolverine (Sep 6, 2012)

> The claim that "everything is bigger in Texas" will likely gain further credence later this year, when the speed limit on a stretch of toll road between Austin and San Antonio hits 85 miles per hour — the highest limit in the country.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/06/13705669-85-mph-texas-to-open-toll-highway-with-fastest-speed-limit-in-nation?lite


----------



## Ryan (Sep 6, 2012)

Took them long enough...

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/38339-high-speed-highways/


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 6, 2012)

Link dosen't work, but if what you say is true, some things pop up:

1. It's gonna be a toll road. Not cheap to drive on.

2. Amtrak didn't have much presence in AUS-SAS anyway.

3. This may either mean thatt Texas does not want to support Amtrak, just roads, or they want to support all modes of transport.

4. Highway safety may drop, but increased speeds don't affect safety much in the US AFAIK.

5. Looks like Greyhound could benifit from this, but they need to pay tolls, too.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 7, 2012)

They just announced an Increase in the Tolls on the Toll Roads around Austin! Traffic Numbers and Revenue havent ever otten Close to Projections that were put out in PR releases when our "Governor for Life" Dick Perry cut a Corrupt Deal with Foriegn Investors to take over the Toll Roads from the State! (even though all the Design and Seed Money etc. was done with Tax Money!) There will be a few Rich Folks with Fast Cars that might Pay to do this, but an Overwhelming Majority of Drivers will continue to Drive on the "Free" Parking Lot known as IH35!!! <_<

FYI- IH10 in West Texas has 80MPH Speed Limits out in the Wilds between San Antonio and El Paso, soon to be increase to 85MPH also! It's 600 Miles from San Antonio to El Paso!!!


----------



## Anderson (Sep 7, 2012)

I seem to recall 85 MPH speed limits being all the rage back in the late 90s, so this isn't much of a shock. With that said...any word on what the toll will be on this highway?

Edit: By the way, I don't have a problem with this in principle. If people are willing to fork over cash to drive faster, I say that the government should take the money and run. The same goes with a number of other things...if someone is more than willing to cover the costs of behavior like this (or driving a Humvee, for another example), I see no reason that the government shouldn't just calculate a cost and let folks pay a fee to do so.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 7, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> 1. It's gonna be a toll road. Not cheap to druve on.
> 
> 2. Amtrak didn't have much presence in AUS-SAS anyway.
> 
> ...


1. There is no such thing as a cheap roadway, toll or not.

2. Amtrak offers daily service in both directions between SAS and AUS. Considering that most of Amtrak's LD network does not exceed single daily service I'd say Amtrak is providing their usual barely noticeable presence.

3. I honestly don't think Texas really cares one way or another about Amtrak. The only pro-rail politician I ever heard about was Kay Bailey Hutchison, who will soon be replaced by yet another Tea Party politician.

4. I read that 12,000 deaths are supposedly blamed on increasing speed limits in the post-55 era. Hard to say for certain either way, but it does sound possible to me. I've seen first hand how an accident at a higher speed results in a much worse outcome.

5. Greyhound is unlikely to do well between SAS and AUS now that Megabus is on the scene with brand new hardware at dirt cheap prices.



jimhudson said:


> Traffic Numbers and Revenue havent ever otten Close to Projections that were put out in PR releases when our "Governor for Life" Dick Perry cut a Corrupt Deal with Foriegn Investors to take over the Toll Roads from the State! (even though all the Design and Seed Money etc. was done with Tax Money!)


I think it's pretty clear that our state's political system is broken if it can be abused to easily and without any threat of repercussion, let alone punishment. Even if Rick Perry were to retire tomorrow his influence and corruption will be felt for decades to come. But I think we all know that's not going to happen. More likely he'll stick around a long time before personally selecting his successor just like he was once picked by the man who preceded him.



jimhudson said:


> FYI- IH10 in West Texas has 80MPH Speed Limits out in the Wilds between San Antonio and El Paso, soon to be increase to 85MPH also! It's 600 Miles from San Antonio to El Paso!!!


I'll admit that it's getting harder and harder to suggest the train to new passengers as the time involved in driving just keeps dropping while the time on the train remains the same.



Anderson said:


> I seem to recall 85 MPH speed limits being all the rage back in the late 90s, so this isn't much of a shock.


What on earth are you talking about?



Anderson said:


> By the way, I don't have a problem with this in principle. If people are willing to fork over cash to drive faster, I say that the government should take the money and run.


It is by no means certain that these toll roads will break even, let alone create any sort of profit. Then again, I didn't even know our government was in the business of making a profit from our citizens while running away from the repercussions.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 7, 2012)

I don't know about making a profit, but the government definitely seems to be in the business of running away from repercussions. However, with that said what I'm thinking is more a case of using Pigovian taxation in lieu of fines, points, etc.

As to the 85 MPH speed limit bit, when the speed limit cap went away entirely (rather than just going from 55 MPH to 65 MPH), I seem to recall that a few states went a little wild when the cap went away (Montana abolished speed limits entirely, and I think Arizona allowed 85 MPH speed limits on rural interstates for a bit before reworking the rules to drop the cap to 75 MPH in effect...at least, I recall that being the limit in place when I went out there on vacation all those years ago). Some of the extremes have since been backed off of (for example, Montana's "reasonable and prudent" law more or less blew apart after a court challenge rendered it unenforceable).


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 7, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I don't know about making a profit, but the government definitely seems to be in the business of running away from repercussions.


My point is that government is not a business at all. If it was we'd presumably be living in a fascist state. It's certainly true that the whole Citizens United ruling has helped blur the line significantly, but I'd still _hope[i/] we're not quite there yet and that we can reverse course before the new corruption of today becomes the normal corruption of tomorrow._

_ _

_ _



Anderson said:


> _As to the 85 MPH speed limit bit, when the speed limit cap went away entirely (rather than just going from 55 MPH to 65 MPH), I seem to recall that a few states went a little wild when the cap went away (Montana abolished speed limits entirely, and I think Arizona allowed 85 MPH speed limits on rural interstates for a bit before reworking the rules to drop the cap to 75 MPH in effect...at least, I recall that being the limit in place when I went out there on vacation all those years ago). Some of the extremes have since been backed off of (for example, Montana's "reasonable and prudent" law more or less blew apart after a court challenge rendered it unenforceable)._


_No, the states did not go wild and nobody abolished speed limits entirely. Some clueless drivers went wild after intentionally misunderstanding the situation. Montana's dry limit was no different than Texas' wet limit. They're both up to the discretion of the officer that witnesses your driving. If they think it's safe and you're off the hook. If they think it's dangerous and you'll be defending it in court._


----------



## Anderson (Sep 7, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about making a profit, but the government definitely seems to be in the business of running away from repercussions.
> ...


_Eh, I'd dispute the effect of the law, at least as the court interpreted it (which was to say that, in effect, leaving the charge wholly up to the officer was unreasonable because it didn't give the driver a metric to determine whether he was in violation of the law...a guy was ticketed doing about 100 MPH and contended that it was still "reasonable and prudent" __[i think the driving conditions were nearly ideal for driving]__; the court concurred that, at the very least, the statute was unacceptably vague and rendered it effectively unenforceable). So I'd argue that Montana wound up without speed limits on those roads temporarily (between the court case coming down and the legislature passing a fix), but it all falls under the category of "why we can't have nice things"._

_ _

_Probably a better phrasing is that you had something of a "euphoric rollback" for a few years and then further adjustments. VA, for example, only just got around to edging some speed limits up to 70 MPH in the last year or so; on the other hand, I suspect there were a few states that raised their limits substantially and then pulled back a bit._

_ _

_As to the point about government not being a business...on the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, there are definitely projects which the government intends to have generate a net increase in revenue over expenses from, and some toll road projects fall in this vein. What they do with that money can vary from general fund use to dedicated uses (bond payments and the like), but some operations certainly are aimed at turning a profit on that project, even if only to fund other projects without "actually" raising taxes. And of course, this is to say nothing of the leased-out tool road projects out there, though those are certainly closer to the 19th century model of governments chartering private companies to carry out a given project._


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 8, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It's gonna be a toll road. Not cheap to druve on.
> ...


1. I know, but this will _seem_ more expensive, which is important.

2. Still, the usual presence is not much presence.

3. If what you say is true then this ain't no good.

4. Very good to know.

5. I disgree. IMHO Megabus equipment is far worse than Greyhound buses (less safe, comfortable, and durable/reliable) and the cheap prices are the only good thing about them. Talk about four accicents in a month! Truth is, I hate Megabus!


----------



## railiner (Sep 8, 2012)

85 mph? Hammer down, good buddy! 

I am old enough to recall the days prior to the 'National 55' limit...

Nevada had no speed limit outside of city limits. Montana likewise, during daylight hours. And IIRC, the highest posted limit in the US was 80mph on the Kansas Turnpike. Most Western states were 75. Midwest 70. East and South 60-65. Curiously, NJTP is higher now then before....65 in rural areas, prior to the national 55 was only 60....

As for buses....Where government regulations don't do the job, the insurance industry fills the gap...while modern coaches are certainly capable of 85 mph speeds, the insurance carriers dictate the coaches be mechanically or electronically 'governed' to below 75 mph.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 9, 2012)

railiner said:


> 85 mph? Hammer down, good buddy!
> 
> I am old enough to recall the days prior to the 'National 55' limit...
> 
> ...


If the govenment allows it then can't Greyhound or another company work out a deal with the insurance?


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 30, 2012)

Looks like the new 85 mph highway has a bit of a pork problem. 

"On the very first night the road was open ... three cars crashed into packs of wild hogs..."

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/10/26/dnt-wild-hog-packs.kxan


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 31, 2012)

As far as I can see, not many people use this route over Interstate and Defense 35.


----------



## rrdude (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't pretend to know the "Details" of the contracts between the State Governments and the chosen toll operators, but intuitively, it seems this is just another way of taking a public asset, (the road) and leasing it to a private company. (the toll operator)

No real problem with that, IF, and it's a BIG "IF", the toll operator pays a reasonable lease rate over the long term, and the State isn't on the hook for insurance issues, maintenance, snow removal, even policing, etc., etc.

The State/Feds sunk X $$$ into building the road, by leasing it out, will they EVER recoup their investment? Is that even a goal?

To me it seems similar to what Britain has done with their rail infrastructure, paid for by taxpayers, but operators are private concerns.

As to the case in Texas? Who pays for the wild hogs to be controlled? Who pays for the policing of the road? Who pays to fence off the road?

Who pays for this maintenance can go either way, but the lease rates would be substantially different if the toll operator DIDN'T have to pay for policing, maintenance, etc., etc.

Like I opined, it CAN be good deal, but I would think the State would have to have _more than a few_ auditors to keep the toll operator in line............


----------

