States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways

The Wall Street Journal
Moves Come Despite Concerns
Over Safety, High Gas Prices;
80 Miles Per Hour in Texas
By STEPHANIE CHEN
July 20, 2006; Page D1

With gasoline prices approaching an average of $3 a gallon and Middle
East strife escalating, it might seem like a bad time to encourage
drivers to burn even more fuel. But speed limits on stretches of
freeways around the country are rising -- just in time for summer road
trips.

States around the country, including Texas and Michigan, have recently
increased speed limits on hundreds of miles of interstate highways and
freeways. Other states are expected to follow soon.

Near Detroit, drivers long confronted by signs telling them to go no
more than 55 miles per hour or 65 mph are seeing new signs with 70 mph
speed limits. By November, cruising at 70 mph will be allowed on nearly
200 miles of road, including parts of Interstate 75 and M-59, a major
suburban route. Texas has begun erecting 80 mph signs along 521 miles
of I-10 and I-20 in 10 rural western counties, giving them the highest
speed limit in the U.S. In September, Virginia is likely to boost the
speed limit on I-85 near the North Carolina border to 70 mph from 65
mph.

Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but
it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of
Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above
60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of
7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher
speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower.
Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph
instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study
Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Bruce Jones, director of the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research
at Minnesota State University in Mankato, calculates from federal data
that driving 75 mph, rather than 65, would increase gas expenses by
about $121 a year for a 2006 Pontiac G6 sedan and $217 for a Hummer.

But lawmakers in Texas, Michigan and other states say that raising
speed limits will make roads safer by restoring credibility to
speed-limit signs and making driving speeds more uniform. While
transportation engineers acknowledge that raising speed limits hurts
fuel efficiency, they contend that careful studies of traffic flow and
driver behavior show that many speed limits are actually too low. Most
drivers who exceed these low speed limits are doing it safely. "In
Texas, they are already going [80 mph] anyway," says Carlos Lopez,
director of traffic operations at the Texas Department of
Transportation. "People are driving where they feel comfortable."

John Stinson, a home remodeler who lives in Mount Clemens, Mich., says
the new 70 mph speed limit on the Van Dyke Expressway gives him an
extra "cushion" during his commutes of as much as 200 miles throughout
southeastern Michigan. "There won't be the slow people holding everyone
up and the fast people weaving in and out," he says.

It has long been thought that higher speed limits lead to more road
fatalities. But the link has been disputed. Many modern roads are built
to accommodate vehicles moving at faster speeds, and many drivers are
now protected by front and side airbags.

In 2005, the number of injuries per mile on the U.S. interstate-highway
system fell to the lowest level since it was established by President
Eisenhower in 1956, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. But Russ Retting, a senior transportation engineer at
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by
auto insurers, says fatality rates were 17% higher in states that
raised speed limits from 1995 to 1999 than in states that didn't.

"It's difficult to generalize information out of all the noise," says
Karl Zimmerman, an assistant research engineer at Texas Transportation
Institute, part of Texas A&M University, adding that many crashes are
caused by weather, driver inattentiveness and road conditions that
aren't connected to speed limits.

Recent speed-limit increases in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Texas are
the latest in a string of jumps dating back to the 1995 repeal of the
nationwide 55 mph speed limit, mandated by Congress in 1974. More than
a dozen states quickly gave drivers the freedom to push the pedal
closer to the metal, especially in Western and Midwestern states with
less congestion, scattered populations and wide, straight interstates.
A total of 31 states now have a maximum speed limit of at least 70 mph,
according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Shaunee Lynch, spokeswoman for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet,
says the state agency hopes that lawmakers will agree early next year
to raise the speed limit to 70 mph from the current 65 mph to keep up
with surrounding states that already let drivers go that fast. Drivers
aren't happy when signs at the border warn them to slow down, she says.

In Louisiana, state Sen. Joe McPherson says he plans to revive his
unsuccessful bill that would have raised the speed limit on Louisiana
interstates to 75 mph from 70 mph and on limited-access freeways to 70
mph from 65 mph. "If 35 mph is more fuel-efficient than 55 mph, then
why don't we all just drive 35 mph?" he says in response to
fuel-efficiency critics.

State lawmakers typically set statewide speed limits, with
transportation officials determining which stretches of roads can
safely handle faster-moving traffic. It isn't clear if the urge to
increase speed limits on interstates will trickle down to smaller roads
and streets, usually controlled by local officials.

Speed limits for cars and trucks can vary, with Illinois restricting
truck drivers to no more than 55 mph -- or 10 mph slower than the
maximum interstate-highway speed for cars. A bid to increase the speed
limit for trucks to 65 mph was vetoed by the Illinois governor in 2004.
In Michigan, the speed limit for trucks will be raised to 65 mph by
November -- but that still keeps them slower than cars.

It is too soon to tell whether some speed demons will see rising speed
limits as an excuse to go even faster. But Michigan transportation
officials are encouraged by the results of boosting the speed limit on
Interstate 69 near Flint to 70 mph last August. When the speed limit
was 55 mph, about 1.8% of all vehicles zipped along at more than 80
mph. That fell to 1% after the change. http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r

> Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but
> it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of
> Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above
> 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of
> 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher
> speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower.
> Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph
> instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study
> Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Does that mean that one pays an additional $180 for the same quantity
of gas? I guess so since the retards at the Environmental and Energy
Study Institute say that the price per gallon of gas magically
increases by 20¢ when one drives faster.

> mph. That fell to 1% after the change. http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

"While
transportation engineers acknowledge that raising speed limits hurts
fuel efficiency, they contend that careful studies of traffic flow and
driver behavior show that many speed limits are actually too low. Most
drivers who exceed these low speed limits are doing it safely. "In
Texas, they are already going [80 mph] anyway," says Carlos Lopez,
director of traffic operations at the Texas Department of
Transportation. "People are driving where they feel comfortable."

"While
transportation engineers acknowledge that raising speed limits hurts
fuel efficiency, they contend that careful studies of traffic flow and
driver behavior show that many speed limits are actually too low. Most
drivers who exceed these low speed limits are doing it safely. "In
Texas, they are already going [80 mph] anyway," says Carlos Lopez,
director of traffic operations at the Texas Department of
Transportation. "People are driving where they feel comfortable."

"While
transportation engineers acknowledge that raising speed limits hurts
fuel efficiency, they contend that careful studies of traffic flow and
driver behavior show that many speed limits are actually too low. Most
drivers who exceed these low speed limits are doing it safely. "In
Texas, they are already going [80 mph] anyway," says Carlos Lopez,
director of traffic operations at the Texas Department of
Transportation. "People are driving where they feel comfortable."

(I thought that bore repeating)

>>But lawmakers in Texas, Michigan and other states say that raising
>>speed limits will make roads safer by restoring credibility to
>>speed-limit signs and making driving speeds more uniform.

What? What law makers said that? This sounds waayyyy to logical and
resonable to be a politician. They deserve a freakin' gold medal.

Here in the Detroit area, and especially through Detroit, you can drive
as fast as you want. The cops in Detroit are too busy trying to catch
murderers, and I have to say, the local and state cops are quite
reasonable as far as freeway speeds. As long as you're not weaving in
and out of traffic, 80 in a 70 won't get you a ticket.

I rarely drive through any of the Metro Detroit freeways as I'm north
of all that junk, but they have been stuck at 55 forever. Where I live
the minimum is 65.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
>
> > Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but
> > it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of
> > Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above
> > 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of
> > 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher
> > speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower.
> > Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph
> > instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study
> > Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.
>
> Does that mean that one pays an additional $180 for the same quantity
> of gas? I guess so since the retards at the Environmental and Energy
> Study Institute say that the price per gallon of gas magically
> increases by 20¢ when one drives faster.

Looks more like a horibbly written sentence. Obviously if your fuel
efficiency loss is 7%, then you'll pay 7% more to travel a given
distance because you've used 7% more fuel.

In article . com>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
>>http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
>
>> Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but
>> it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of
>> Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above
>> 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of
>> 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher
>> speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower.
>> Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph
>> instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study
>> Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.

> Does that mean that one pays an additional $180 for the same quantity
> of gas? I guess so since the retards at the Environmental and Energy
> Study Institute say that the price per gallon of gas magically
> increases by 20¢ when one drives faster.

I love how these studies neglect the cost of fuel due to congestion.
Idling in traffic is the lowest mpg possible. (unless you consider going
backwards negative mpg) Properly set speed limits should make up for it
with less idling.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
> >
> >> Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but
> >> it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of
> >> Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above
> >> 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of
> >> 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher
> >> speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower.
> >> Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph
> >> instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study
> >> Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.
>
> > Does that mean that one pays an additional $180 for the same quantity
> > of gas? I guess so since the retards at the Environmental and Energy
> > Study Institute say that the price per gallon of gas magically
> > increases by 20¢ when one drives faster.
>
> I love how these studies neglect the cost of fuel due to congestion.
> Idling in traffic is the lowest mpg possible. (unless you consider going
> backwards negative mpg) Properly set speed limits should make up for it
> with less idling.

Doubtful...gridlock is gridlock regardless of whether the posted limit
is 40 or 140. If the traffic is stop-and-go, no change regardless of
what's legal.

Doubtful...gridlock is gridlock regardless of whether the posted limit
is 40 or 140. If the traffic is stop-and-go, no change regardless of
what's legal.



Actually, higher limits could reduce or delay the start of gridlock.
Consider thousands of cars entering a freeway (not all at once), and all of
them going 65MPH. For each car, if they go exactly 65MPH, it will take X
amount of time to reach their exit. For each car, if their speed increases
to 80MPH, it will take something <X amount of time to reach their exit.
Basically, this means that the average number of cars on the road is
greater, at any one moment, if the average speed is lower. So if it takes
40,000 cars (for example) to clog the freeway, and 80MPH would keep the
average number of cars on the freeway BELOW 40,000, then the higher limit
could ease congestion. But if the speed stays at 65MPH allowing 50,000 cars
to be on the freeway at once, now you've got a problem. -Dave

In article .com>, morticide wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, Arif Khokar wrote:
>> > gpsman wrote:
>> >>http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
>> >
>> >> Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but
>> >> it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of
>> >> Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above
>> >> 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of
>> >> 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher
>> >> speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower.
>> >> Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph
>> >> instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study
>> >> Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy.
>>
>> > Does that mean that one pays an additional $180 for the same quantity
>> > of gas? I guess so since the retards at the Environmental and Energy
>> > Study Institute say that the price per gallon of gas magically
>> > increases by 20¢ when one drives faster.
>>
>> I love how these studies neglect the cost of fuel due to congestion.
>> Idling in traffic is the lowest mpg possible. (unless you consider going
>> backwards negative mpg) Properly set speed limits should make up for it
>> with less idling.
>
> Doubtful...gridlock is gridlock regardless of whether the posted limit
> is 40 or 140. If the traffic is stop-and-go, no change regardless of
> what's legal.

No it isn't. Ever get stuck in a backup because of something off to the
side of the road, not blocking any lanes or posing any driving hazard?

That is the same condition that poorly set speed limit causes. Some
drivers trying to obey a underposted speed limit, others trying to drive
what they feel is comfortable and not too slow... the slow ones end up
gumming up the works. In the analogy, the slow ones are those who slow to
look at whatever it is off the road, the fast ones are the ones who wish
to drive right by because it poses no hazard to driving. The slow ones
are gumming up the works.

"gpsman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>more quickly, but
> it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car.

Bingo. When you drive fast you are ****ing away fuel to save a little
time.

>
> "There won't be the slow people holding everyone
> up and the fast people weaving in and out," he says.

And complete BS. The speed limit is the maximum allowed rate of travel,
not a minimum. If I want to drive the minimum legal speed on an expressway
or interstate, that's my right. As long as you keep right except when
passing, it's not a problem.

>
> It has long been thought that higher speed limits lead to more road
> fatalities. But the link has been disputed. Many modern roads are built
> to accommodate vehicles moving at faster speeds, and many drivers are
> now protected by front and side airbags.

Of course, for folks like motorcyclists, speed indeed can kill. You
chances of surviving a motorcycle accident at 80 mph are alot lower than
surviving one at 55 mph. And the faster you go, even for a car, the more
following distance you need to have a margin of safety. Oh wait, the
average stupid American driver doesn't even know what a two second following
distance is. Let alone the 3 seconds needed on an expressway.

Whats worse is that many drivers, when they hop off an interstate, take a
while to adjust back to "city" driving. Keeping speed limits low, for that
reason alone, is good enough. Roads don't belong just to car drivers, they
belong to everybody else too, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.
Driving fast is not a human right.