NYT Suggests Lower Speed Limit to Curb Fuel Use

[ToeJam13]

A recent article over at the New York Times by reporters Jad Mouawad and Simon Romero proposes that President Bush should immediately bring back the national 55 mile-per-hour limit on national freeways and highways in order to conserve fuel.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, in 1983 the lower speed limit contributed to an annual savings of 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (or about 2.2%).

However, such a change may face stiff resistance due to political differences in today?s driving climate.

In the 1970s, most cars driven by Americans consumed similar levels of fuel. A reduction in speed affected everyone across the board equally. However today, that is no longer the case. Fuel consumption ranges from 12C/16H for a Range Rover to 61C/66H for a Honda Insight (for non-hybrids, 50C/81H for the Audi A2 TDI).

Owners of fuel-efficient cars may not be willing to lower their speed because of other drivers? poor buying habits. Furthermore, it may not have as much of an effect. In 1974, a three-speed transmission was commonplace. Today, many cars are equipped with five-speed and six-speed transmissions that allow engines to run at lower RPMs at high speed.

It may also be a dangerous thing to do. After the national limit was raised from 55 to 65, the number of freeway accidents (ratio accidents-per-actual drivers) actually decreased. Studies showed that speeders had a sweet spot of just over 70 Mi/h, which is now within legal limits in many states. The percentage of drivers who travel more than 10% over the speed limit has since gone down since many do not feel comfortable driving over 80 Mi/h.

Lastly, a decrease in the speed limit may further infuriate drivers who drive due to a lack of a better option. Rail service in the United States is a joke outside of the northeast rail corridor. Airports now require up to two hours lead-time before a flight, making shuttle service between neighboring cities highly inconvenient. The only remaining option is to drive.

So what are some alternatives? Limiting the scope of the 55 Mi/h limit to urban and suburban freeways where a majority of cars are driven would be a start. Forcing fuel inefficient vehicles to drive at slower speeds would also work. Increasing the fuel efficiency of fleets by 1 Mi/gal every other year for the next ten years until fuel cells begin to take hold and/or raising the federal tax of fuel by $0.25/gal during the same time would defer the need for lower speeds to begin with.

EDIT:
To bypass NYTimes registration, use a password from Bugmenot.

 

[illusion88]

One way to fight the problem. Why not take the money used to put this through and use it to push a ban on fuel gussling cars? At the very limit inforce a rul where all new cars must meet a low fuel usage standard? Fight the source.

 

[conjur]

Indiana just raised their speed limit to 70 in rural areas. Makes Kentucky the only state between Chicago and Jacksonville with a 65mph limit.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: conjur
Indiana just raised their speed limit to 70 in rural areas. Makes Kentucky the only state between Chicago and Jacksonville with a 65mph limit.

Illinois is all 65mph or less, but its not well enforced. I routinely drive an 85 mile stretch of I-55 in less than an hour. I still get 30mpg too.

 

[SuperTool]

I wonder how much tailgating a big rig will improve your gas mileage?

 

[SuperTool]

Oh, and I think the truck speed limit should apply to trucks.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I wonder how much tailgating a big rig will improve your gas mileage?

Not enough to make up for having to repaint your hood from the rock chips.

 

[BBond]

After the gas shortages of the 70s Americans had a better attitude toward conserving energy. President Carter proposed a new initiative to decrease consumption through higher mileage standards and increase public transportation so that roadways would cease being parking lots and all of those single occupant vehicles would become a thing of the past.

When Reagan was elected that all went out the window. Newspaper headlines read, "It's OK to be rich again". And it was OK to sell more cars and more oil too. CAFE standards were attacked by the auto manufacturers and their allies in government. After all, who wants to increase mileage when it's OK to be rich? Build bigger cars and to hell with conservation -- WE'RE RICH!!!

Twenty five years later we find ourselves slaves to the same people who cut our fuel supply in the 70s and created lines as long as those in Iraq today. They did a pretty good job of screwing our economy too. And alternative energy as well as conservation were relegated to the trash bin of history.

Does anyone besides me find this odd?

I'm beginning to understand the true reason Bush was holding hands with his Saudi cousin.

 

[Tommunist]

everyone give up big displacement and go for turbos instead - same power with better fuel effeciency. with proper gearing high speeds aren't a huge deal. yes there is drag but time is money and getting to work faster has very nice benefits (more time to sleep and relax).

 

[Rainsford]

Well let's think about this for a second. Lowering the speed limit saves a few percentages on gas consumption, my car gets pretty much the same gas mileage at 60 as it does at 75. Even SUVs have the same ratios. After all, going a constant speed on the highway isn't that much of a strain on your engine, the particular speed you go doesn't make too much difference. It was all they could do before since most cars got about the same MPG.

Fast forward to today. I just moved from a mid-90s Ford Explorer getting maybe 20 MPG on the highway (if I was lucky) to a brand new Mazda 3 that gets over 30 on the highway. That's a 33% decrease in fuel consumption, and that's from an SUV that isn't even close to the worst offender. Encouraging people to buy more cars like the 3 and fewer Explorers and you could save a lot more gas than any speed limit change would do.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
everyone give up big displacement and go for turbos instead - same power with better fuel effeciency. with proper gearing high speeds aren't a huge deal. yes there is drag but time is money and getting to work faster has very nice benefits (more time to sleep and relax).

Hell, you don't even need a turbo really. My car has a 2.3 L 4 with no turbo or anything, and it works just fine.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Indiana just raised their speed limit to 70 in rural areas. Makes Kentucky the only state between Chicago and Jacksonville with a 65mph limit.

Well, hey shouldn't we make the speed limit higher to keep up with rising gas prices? If fuel prices are higher, the speed limit should be too! Otherwise speed limits will not be able to keep pace with the rising price of gas and soon speed limit signs everywhere will be meaningless. . .oh wait. They already are.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: conjur
Indiana just raised their speed limit to 70 in rural areas. Makes Kentucky the only state between Chicago and Jacksonville with a 65mph limit.

Illinois is all 65mph or less, but its not well enforced. I routinely drive an 85 mile stretch of I-55 in less than an hour. I still get 30mpg too.

Yeah, fuel economy is much better when you drive in 5th gear all the time as opposed to 4th gear. So lets just all think of speeding as conserving gas! Oh and keep your tires properly inflated.

 

[judasmachine]

If these ppl won't be more responsible when they select a SUV over a more efficient vehicle, then this MIGHT be a decent idea. I hear that Ford is making a Hybrid Explorer, hey it's a start... (may prove too little too late though)

 

[ToeJam13]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
everyone give up big displacement and go for turbos instead - same power with better fuel effeciency. with proper gearing high speeds aren't a huge deal. yes there is drag but time is money and getting to work faster has very nice benefits (more time to sleep and relax).

Turbochargers fall into the same category as variable valve timers ? a complex trick that helps fuel economy and power levels but adds a serious level of complexity to engine design. Turbochargers also suffer from the requirement of regular replacement every 60K-90K miles. If you?ve received a repair bill for either item, I?m sure you?ll agree that the cost far outweighs the gain in fuel efficiency.

One of the biggest issues we are going to face with fuel efficiency is over large pickup trucks. These vehicles must use large displacement engines in order to properly tow heavy items such as boats and trailers. No matter how many composites in the truck?s body and lightweight metals you use in the truck?s frame, the items you haul with remain the same weight. Nothing short of a big TDI engine will do the trick. Alas, even with new tricks such as alternate-cylinder firing, direct-port injection, dual spark ignition and computerized variable timed ignition, these engines will consume more fuel than a generic 4-cylider engine.

So what can be done? You can discourage their use as daily drivers by imposing special license requirements for larger trucks. You can make it more expensive to drive. You can also make it more inconvenient through lane use restrictions and lower speed limits. Of course, you can?t do too much or else you?ll piss these people off. They do have a legitimate reason to be on the road and they have paid their gas and registration taxes so they have the right to use it.

 

[Zedtom]

Get on the freeway in any city and drive the speed limit...there will be cars tailgating you, flipping you off, etc. The idea of lowering speed limits is laughable. If they want to start rationing gas, they better prepare themselves for wide scale protests from the SUV crowd.

 

[StageLeft]

God, people, think. Anybody who's driven in rush hour traffic knows that a small increase in cars to a road that's already at critical mass (which I determine as the max number of cars it can handle before traffic just starts to really grind to a halt) will know that if we were all going 55 instead of 70 the roads would, in effect, be more congested, which would lead to rampant gridlocking and more gas used by cars basically idling on the highway at 15 mph.

Plus it's just freaking painful going that fast I wouldn't even wish it on a hummer owner.

I would like to see speed limits raised to at least 80 anyway. I have never seen anybody come close to an accident because they were going too fast on the highway. I have, however, seen people cut off and tailgated because they were going too damn slowly and pissed others off.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
God, people, think. Anybody who's driven in rush hour traffic knows that a small increase in cars to a road that's already at critical mass (which I determine as the max number of cars it can handle before traffic just starts to really grind to a halt) will know that if we were all going 55 instead of 70 the roads would, in effect, be more congested, which would lead to rampant gridlocking and more gas used by cars basically idling on the highway at 15 mph.

Plus it's just freaking painful going that fast I wouldn't even wish it on a hummer owner.

I would like to see speed limits raised to at least 80 anyway. I have never seen anybody come close to an accident because they were going too fast on the highway. I have, however, seen people cut off and tailgated because they were going too damn slowly and pissed others off.

So what you're saying is you've seen irresponsible drivers cut people off and almost cause accidents.



I would hate to drive 55 (or 90kph, here), but if people insist on buying SUVs, it might be the only option.

Damn things don't have good enough brakes to go faster than that anyway, let alone fuel economy.

 

[sandorski]

Variable Speed Limit! The Prius has no limit, the Escalade 50MPH(or whatever the best MPG is). Every vehicle will be connected to a Network and sensor Data will be uploaded at various times. The Network will then send the Speed Limit back to the Vehicle where that Vehicles Limit will be displayed either on a HUD or somewhere on the Dash. If a Vehicle exceeds the Limit, they'll be given an audible warning and will have X amount of time before further action is taken. Exceed the Time, receive a Fine, it would be printed out as you Drive! How convenient is that?

 

[ToeJam13]

Taxi drivers in Singapore and some truck drivers in Australia already have a speed alarm system like that. I hear its very annoying.

The problem with a variable speed limit on a per vehicle basis is that you loose saftey through consistency in speed. One of the largest killers on the freeway, as mentioned above, is when you get a few people driving much faster than everyone else. An unlimited speed on a Prius, Insight or A2 would be a dangerous thing.

Furthermore, you have to keep it simple. Dedicate the left lanes for cars and the right lanes for trucks, vans and suvs. Then you assign a speed limit on a per lane basis (they do this in Mexico City). If a car moves over into the truck lane, not only does the "no passing along the right" rule apply but also the "adhere to this lane's lower speed limit".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
Taxi drivers in Singapore and some truck drivers in Australia already have a speed alarm system like that. I hear its very annoying.

The problem with a variable speed limit on a per vehicle basis is that you loose saftey through consistency in speed. One of the largest killers on the freeway, as mentioned above, is when you get a few people driving much faster than everyone else. An unlimited speed on a Prius, Insight or A2 would be a dangerous thing.

Furthermore, you have to keep it simple. Dedicate the left lanes for cars and the right lanes for trucks, vans and suvs. Then you assign a speed limit on a per lane basis (they do this in Mexico City). If a car moves over into the truck lane, not only does the "no passing along the right" rule apply but also the "adhere to this lane's lower speed limit".

Oh, I was joking and had no idea such a thing actually exists. Interesting. I do agree with your analysis as to the danger though.

 

[ToeJam13]

I figured as much, but sarcasm doesn't relay well in text.

As a speeder, I would hate a big-brother alarm system in my car or truck. That said, I would hate having to drive my S-10 pickup at a lower speed. However, my pickup isn't my daily driver. The engine is simply too big and too fuel inefficient. That?s why I have my car.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13

Originally posted by: Tommunist
everyone give up big displacement and go for turbos instead - same power with better fuel effeciency. with proper gearing high speeds aren't a huge deal. yes there is drag but time is money and getting to work faster has very nice benefits (more time to sleep and relax).

Turbochargers fall into the same category as variable valve timers ? a complex trick that helps fuel economy and power levels but adds a serious level of complexity to engine design. Turbochargers also suffer from the requirement of regular replacement every 60K-90K miles. If you?ve received a repair bill for either item, I?m sure you?ll agree that the cost far outweighs the gain in fuel efficiency.

an example of a great TC engine:
The VW 1.8T is pretty much bulletproof - I know people running those on the same turbo for over 100k pretty easily and these people are modding their cars (which should only make the turbo go sooner). With proper use (letting the car cool down properly as to not bake the turbo in hot oil) a turbo will last a long time.

I'll agree that making things more complex can lead to more problems but with advances in manufacture and process this sort of thing becomes more viable with time hence there being a lot more turbo cars on the market now - most of subaru, most of volvo, all of saab, and many others.

If you want to look at the power per cost ratio of running a NA engine versus a turbo the turbo will win almost every time. Since I'm most familiar with VW I'll go for that:

jetta 1.8t 21k
jetta VR6 23k (we'll go back in time to the 12v VR6 which had the same power as the 1.8t)

(this is similarly equiped of course)

the 1.8t will get about 3-5 mpg better with similar driving styles. This alone will save 2-3k over the course of 100k miles. Let's for fun pretend that we actually replace the turbo at 100k - estimated cost about 3k (being generous here).

at this point the turbo is about 1-2k up on the N/A engine assuming the case that the turbo needs replacement at 100k (when I know for a fact it will last longer than that).

on top of all this the turbo car used less resources.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
God, people, think. Anybody who's driven in rush hour traffic knows that a small increase in cars to a road that's already at critical mass (which I determine as the max number of cars it can handle before traffic just starts to really grind to a halt) will know that if we were all going 55 instead of 70 the roads would, in effect, be more congested, which would lead to rampant gridlocking and more gas used by cars basically idling on the highway at 15 mph.

Plus it's just freaking painful going that fast I wouldn't even wish it on a hummer owner.

I would like to see speed limits raised to at least 80 anyway. I have never seen anybody come close to an accident because they were going too fast on the highway. I have, however, seen people cut off and tailgated because they were going too damn slowly and pissed others off.

What happens when everybody is going much faster is that there are fewer less severe accidents but when there is an accident, it is a whopper because nobody is able to stop or control their car to get out of the way at such high speeds. What might have been a fender bender involving 3 or 4 cars at 55 MPH becomes a 50 car pile-up with everybody going 80+ MPH and usually many more fatalities and bad injuries.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
I figured as much, but sarcasm doesn't relay well in text.

As a speeder, I would hate a big-brother alarm system in my car or truck. That said, I would hate having to drive my S-10 pickup at a lower speed. However, my pickup isn't my daily driver. The engine is simply too big and too fuel inefficient. That?s why I have my car.

But does the money saved by driving your smaller car daily offset the money you spent buying two cars instead of one?