August 21, 2008
Transit on Thursday: Cue Sammy Hagar Reference Edition
Whilst browsing through our usual feed of transit news, we came upon this USA Today article about the Drive 55 campaign -- it was of modest interest, but nothing that seemed to be too D.C.-area related. After all, the speed limit for all our major highways in Maryland and Virginia have been set at 65 since the national limit was raised by Congress in November 1995 (see page 20 of this PDF), and only a scant few of the District's roads could even come close to safely allowing such high speeds.
But then we stumbled upon this WTOP report about the new Variable Speed Limits (or VSL) in effect on the Beltway near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge -- and how it's had some modest success in managing the overall flow of traffic; suddenly, we found a new darling to quell the seemingly never-ending argument between 65 vs. 55 that's once again reared it's ugly head.
Of course, the usual talking points are cut and dry with the 65 and 55 camps -- first, that it's again an issue because of the incredibly high price of gasoline. Reports have noted that for each mile per hour that is driven over 55, a vehicle's fuel economy is reduced by 1 percent -- and the drop is even faster for going over 65. Of course, 65 backers counter that slowing down increases the amount of time that you're on the road, which could increase congestion. Double-nickel backers would cite that faster driving speeds leads to more reckless driving, while proponents of the current limit would note that in "interstate-heavy" areas of the country like Northern Virginia, fatalities have actually stayed steady or declined since the transition. Proponents of the current speeds say that there's nothing stopping drivers from voluntarily slowing down; others think that without government intervention, it's an empty gesture to simply hope that people will do so. There's more, but we'll spare you.
In the end, all this bickering is why we think VSL is the perfect solution: if you're unfamiliar with the idea of VSL, it's quite simple. Electronically posted speed limits are contingent on the amount of congestion, conditions, and weather in any given area -- or as the WTOP write up zenishly puts it:
John Undeland, spokesperson for the Wilson Bridge Project, compares it to pouring rice through a funnel. If you pour the rice in at a controlled rate, more will go through at a constant speed. But if you pour all of the rice in at once, a jam will form.
A solution that, like variable tolling, should be a big part of the future of metropolitan area highway travel in certain sections of the country -- namely, our backyard. Not to be outdone, Maryland is one of two states that is part of a federal pilot program to test VSL in work zones since 2005. Are VSLs needed everywhere nationally? No -- but they certainly would help in the struggle we have with gridlock. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has introduced a bill to the Senate that would consider the ramifications of a compromised 60 miles per hour -- but perhaps the Senator needs to simplify matters and look to the promising technology in his own region first.
Photo by Chris a.k.a ~Crush~.
Slugging Percentage -- Now A Statistic For Drivers Too: "We support it, but we can't condone it," is the official line from the Virginia Department of Transportation on slugging -- a riff on hitchhiking which entails picking up riders in order to ride for free in HOV lanes. With the HOT lanes currently under construction on the Beltway enabling cars with lots of passengers to ride for free, we can only imagine that slugging will only get more popular. Frankly, we'd be a bit frightened by the idea of hopping in someone's car that we don't know -- but whatever gets you from one place to the next, I suppose. We thought that maybe our trusty commentariat could supply some of their experiences with this interesting type of transit -- feel free to share your stories in the comments.
Metrobus Detours For Ben's Celebrations: Do note that if you're a frequent rider of the 90 series of buses, Friday's morning rush hour ride might be a bit different. Due to the 50th birthday celebration at Ben's Chili Bowl, a few routes will be diverted between 12th and 13th on U Street, which will be closed to traffic.
There will also be routine track maintenance on the Blue, Yellow, and Red Lines this weekend. Long story short: if you're coming from or going to Braddock Road station, factor in an extra twenty minutes all weekend -- if you're travelling the Red Line between Shady Grove and Twinbrook on Sunday, factor in an extra fifteen minutes.
Engines and Cabooses: Washington airports see large improvements in on-time performance...VRE could see a rate hike of up to 10 percent at once come next year...Yeah, hitting 100 in a 30 mile per hour zone seems like it'd require a stuntman and a Ferrari, not an elderly couple and their Echo...Police are on pace to break the city record for ticketing drivers who are using their cell phones...Virginia ranks 16th in highway cost-effectiveness performance nationally -- Maryland ranks 37th...VDOT has a new traffic information website...Required transit/urbanism reading: a debate on Prince George's County's transit-oriented development planning -- first, the statement, then the rebuttal.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
It really isn't news if it happens every weekend. Taking the Metro at any time, there is the inherent risk of delay.
As for the cell phone talkers in the District, the best story I have is walking by Washington Circle and hearing this booming voice yell "Get off the cell phone" from the loud speaker attached to a cop car. I doubt that stopped the person, but merely annoyed them since they couldn't talk about their latest shopping expedition in Georgetown.
[ report this ]
I heard Up With People is making a comeback, too. I predict greater success than with a return to 55MPH.
Getting tired of hearing that "rice in a funnel" metaphor regarding VSL. Basically, instead of getting a jam in the funnel, all you're doing is moving the jam back into the sack of rice. The rice is just sitting there, waiting to get into the goddamned funnel, but you're not letting it, because some assclown decided that you should "pour more slowly" instead of get a bigger goddamned funnel. Or better yet, ditch the funnel entirely and give whole BOWLS of rice to monkeys with jetpacks. Sure, you might get some "poo in your ricebowl" but that's the price of progress. Just ask Robert Fulton, or Henry Ford, or the guy who invented anal love beads.
When will these so-called "transit engineers" accept that rice-bearing chimp jetpack transit is the direction we should be going?
[ report this ]
Do I want to know how they got that picture? Maybe not..
I'm still unable to comprehend how VSL is successful.. I know empirically it is, but it just seems like people would ignore the signs and go as fast as the traffic allows.
[ report this ]
I know Jersey does the same thing on I-95. I don't know how successful it is because who really wants to go 55 or slower while driving through Jersey. Most people want to go as fast as they can to get away from the cloud of toxic fumes that hovers over it from the moment you enter the state until you leave it.
[ report this ]
If I see any "I drive 55" bumper stickers on the back of cars and they are in ANYTHING but the furthest right slow lane, Im running them off the Mutha-effin road. Do what you want, but dont get in my way while doing it. Im so sick of these people!!!
[ report this ]
In my personal experience, the savings for driving slower on the highway are inconsequential to the point of being silly.
Two summers ago when gas first hit $3 a gallon, I was driving a 150 mile round trip to PA daily. My normal speed is 75-80 MPH on I-270 and 65-70 on Route 15. I did a test to see how much I might save by driving conservatively.
I drove the speed limit or below one day on the entire trip. I accelerated slowly, let the car slow down up hills, and passed people rarely. I got an average of 32 MPG. I drove my normal speed on another trip (10-15 mph over the speed limit) and got about 28 MPG. Traffic was light in both tests so I didn't have to slow down and speed up to pass cars. This is a 2001 BMW with a 6 cylinder engine.
I'm sorry. It's just not worth it. That article about the dude in the Chevy Malibu is a load of crap-- there's no way he got 10 MPG better just by slowing down 10 MPH. And the test is flawed, since he compared the trip in two different directions. Who knows what the geography is? Maybe he got better mileage one way because the destination is at a lower altitude.
Most of your fuel burn is accelerating. Maybe the guy didn't pass and kept a consistent speed on his slow-driving leg, whereas he drove aggressively all the time (slowing down and speeding up) on the other one. But that story doesn't add up.
[ report this ]
KrazyKat, I saw a cop do that in Eastern Market and it made my life. 'Ma'am, get off the cell phone. Ma'am, I'm talking to you. Ma'am, if you do not hang up the phone, I will ticket you.'
And the best part is, the lady kept giving her the 'one more minute' finger.
[ report this ]
Bestest MPD cell phone story: Cop on a cell phone (using a headset, at least) pulls over driver on cell phone (not using headset). She barely interrupted her conversation as she took down the driver's info and wrote up the ticket.
[ report this ]
Driving 55 and assuming every car will get better gas mileage is basically a load of crap. Every car is geared differently, therefore every car has it's own optimal speed that below it or above it, will affect it's gas mileage. What if in my car, I'm in 6th gear at 55, but I can't keep the rev's up enough so I'm pressing harder on the gas (and wasting fuel), or if I'm in 5th and the rev's are too high? Just to assume that all cars are the same shows a complete lack of knowledge of how an automobile works.
I agree with a poster above, it's all in how you drive. Accelerate hard, you waste gas, be consistent and save. On Top Gear they tested a BMW M3 vs. a Toyota Prius, had them drive a steady 45 MPH and what car had the better gas mileage? The M3.
A couple of years ago in Michigan, a lady was driving 55 and had a big poster saying she drove 55 to save gas and was staying in the far left lane. In Michigan, cruising speeds are consistently 80-85 MPH, she just about caused 100 accidents as people almost plowed through her.
[ report this ]
I can't wait until I'm sitting in traffic and some jackass changes the sign to 80.
[ report this ]
possessive its has no apostrophe
[ report this ]
The book of the moment is Traffic, by Tom Vanderbilt.
Interesting factoids from the one-sheet PDF available at the Amazon link:
Considering the amount of research Vanderbilt did, I'd trust him to know more about how traffic works (and doesn't) than any single DCist commenter. My copy will be here tomorrow. I look forward to reading it.
[ report this ]
jamie - Your 4 MPG is not at all "inconsequential".. it's a 15% increase in efficiency. That BMW probably has a 16-gallon tank? So that's another 60+ miles per fillup.
[ report this ]
I use 495 about 3 times a week at different times and I have noticed the following:
a) VSL doesn't mean anything when you're sitting in a backup from the bridge to Van Dorn Street, except for the instance where I was driving a little over the suggested speed limit of 35mph...on Eisenhower Avenue.
b) VSL hasn't really slowed anyone down except for me. I find myself the only one slowing down to 60 when it's 50. Everyone else is going 70-80 and looking at me like I'm a freak. Trust me people, I want to drive as fast as you, but I don't won't to pay the high ticket cost if I get caught in that specific zone. But the Troopers that VDOT promised would be around to help enforce compliance to the new VSL have yet to be seen.
[ report this ]
What is up with the cop and loudspeaker uptick? I think it is great, because if there is one thing LESS annoying than people driving with cellphones, it is surely cops screaming in loudspeakers.
An abnoxious cop did that the other day to some guy blocking an intersection, and I was walking by the cop car right when it happened- and I pooped a little.
Can you say fatlazy? Especially since the person in the car with the windows rolled up, AC blowing, phone-bud in ear, and top 40 blaring, can't hear them anyway. Meanwhile pedestrians get the full witty banter at 1000db. Radical.
[ report this ]
mike - You're correct about the gearing, but you're ignoring the elephant in the room: wind resistance.
The Top Gear segment you reference has been widely debunked, and your description of the test is completely inaccurate. The test was around a circuit, with no braking. As such, the Prius could not recharge its batteries. They also raced the Prius at its top speed, not 45 mph.
[ report this ]
I think a 15% increase is inconsequential. The cost of gas fluctuates that much in three days.
75 miles at 75mph = 1 hour, 2.67 gallons of gas @ 3.50 per = $9.38
75 miles at 55 mph = 1 hour 21 minutes, 2.34 gallons = $8.20
21 minutes of my time is worth more than $1.18 thank you very much.
[ report this ]
Let me put that another way: Would you pay $2.36 for an extra 42 minutes of free time every day? Jesus I'd probably pay $20 for it if that was the choice in front of me. Adding 30% to a long commute to save pocket change is stupid.
[ report this ]
I am interested in reading Tom Vanderbilt's book. I read a few posts of his on the internet and he seems sensible, but the analysis of slower vs. faster on highways seems simplistic.
Yes, cars are closer together at 55mph. But they also spend proportionally more time on the highway. Fitting more cars on the road at any given time is completely different than throughput (e.g. number of cars passing through a given segment in a fixed amount of time). The discussion online with Tom never addresses this despite it being mentioned by some commenters.
Also, there is no evidence that 55 increases safety. Highway fatalities actually went down the year after the speed limit was repealed.
[ report this ]
I just love the term "HOT slugging." It sounds so nasty and porny, like "Teen Nympho Shrimping Party" or "Gondolier Gangbang" or "Wankel Rotory Engine."
[ report this ]
55 is so ... 70s!!! Get with the program, man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
[ report this ]
Jamie -
You never run into traffic that forces you to slow down? You always make the same trip exactly 21 minutes faster?
[ report this ]
We're talking about speed limits here. I did in fact make the trip during non-rush times, so I rarely hit traffic (as I mentioned).
But if the discussion is about the benefits of driving 55 vs. 75, then potential traffic conditions are not relevant. That will be a factor whatever the speed limit may be, and will only affect rush-hour traffic -- which is well below 55 for the most part, anyway.
[ report this ]
"We support it, but we can't condone it"
That makes zero sense.
[ report this ]
Ah, but that actually emphasizes the value of variable speed limits. In rush hour traffic, the people who speed up to 75 or 80 when past one blockage cause the next one to be worse (or sometimes cause the next one when they themselves instigate an accident in their hurry). Traffic conditions are very relevant. If everybody travels at the same smooth speed with the same consistent distance between cars, the road can handle many more vehicles than it can with individual drivers speeding up and slowing down willy nilly.
If the road could safely support consistent speeds of 75mph I'd be right there with you, but most of our roads can't.
[ report this ]
"possessive its has no apostrophe"
I know that, and am mystified at my misuse. Shame on me :-)
I wasn't referring to the Top Gear bit as proof that M3's are more efficient than Prius, it's obvious to look at the test and point out its flaws, but at the same time I found it humorous to watch and given the subject I thought I would mention it. It has been a while since I've seen the segment, so I apologize for describing it so inaccurately.
When it comes to wind resistance, again....it depends on the car. If you drive a Honda Element obviously wind resistance is going to play a bit more into the equation than someone who drives a car that has better aerodynamics. I simply don't believe that every car is going to have better fuel economy at 55 MPH vs. 65 MPH.
How about we regulate the aerodynamics of cars and implement strict rev limiters, that should save some gas, too!
[ report this ]
Of course, 65 backers counter that slowing down increases the amount of time that you're on the road, which could increase congestion.
This just seems like a stunningly stupid argument--akin to arguing that in case of fire, everyone should run pell-mell towards the exits, pushing and shoving, cause, y'know, you get out faster that way.
[Sign of the cross, lest I summon Hillman...]
[ report this ]
When it comes to wind resistance, again....it depends on the car. If you drive a Honda Element obviously wind resistance is going to play a bit more into the equation than someone who drives a car that has better aerodynamics. I simply don't believe that every car is going to have better fuel economy at 55 MPH vs. 65 MPH.
This is geared towards cyclists, but you can do the conversion.
Bottom line is that wind resistance increases as the square of the velocity, so yes "every car is going to have better fuel economy at 55 MPH vs. 65 MPH".
[ report this ]
"If the road could safely support consistent speeds of 75mph I'd be right there with you, but most of our roads can't."
Most highways can, and do on a regular basis. People tend to drive at a speed that is comfortable, regardless of the speed limit. Traffic on most major interstate highways with 65 mph speed limits is rarely below 72 mph. The Jersey Turnpike flows at 80 every time I'm on it.
My argument is in the overarching idea of a national speed limit of 55 mph. I'm not saying the beltway should be 75 or some windy back road should be. This is about maximum speed on roads that can handle it, as most interstates can. The arguments against higher speed limits here are all about fuel consumption, not safety. History does not support the notion that higher speed limits have a significant impact on safety, and I don't think the impact on fuel consumption is enough to warrant the change.
In the 70's, according to wikipedia, the change resulted in less than 1% reduction in fuel consuption. If we really cared about this, then we'd raise the CAFE standards for new cars by even 1 MPG or add a hefty gas tax. An artificially low speed limit is simply not the right way to reduce oil consumption. It wasn't then, and it definitely isn't now.