Federal Speed Limit

It is a topic which has been fought ever since implementation, and successfully, too, as there are currently no national speed limit guidelines. A federally-mandated speed limit was initially implemented in 1974 with the passage of the National Maximum Speed Law. As a response to the 1973 oil embargo, it was an attempt to curb fuel consumption through the reduction of speed on all roads to 55 MPH or less. Fast-forward 13 years, and oil is no longer a scarce resource (at least at the pump). With fuel prices (comparatively) low, and drivers clamoring for higher speeds, the federal government passed the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, allowing states to raise rural speed limits to 65 MPH. Forty-one of them did exactly that. Another eight years pass, and President Clinton signs the National Highway Designation Act, proposing, among other things, the elimination of all national speed limits. States were now free to raise speed limits on national roads as they saw fit.

This is where America's highway policies currently reside. Most highways have posted speed limits of 65 or 70 MPH, while actual vehicle travel rates may be 5-10 MPH higher. Speeds of 80 MPH are not uncommon to see in both rural and urban road conditions. Besides showing how much of a rush Americans are often in, what problems does this create? Keeping in line with the company policies of 3P (People, Planet, Profit), let's begin with the human aspect.

Speed kills. This isn't a new and surprising phrase, however, the area in which it is describing may be. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health in September, 2009, the progressive elimination of national speed limits has resulted in an estimated total of over 12,500 additional traffic accident deaths since 1987. How could this be? Vehicles have undoubtedly become safer, yet people continue to die in high-speed accidents. One could explain it away with the increase of automobiles on the road, however, that does not explain these facts: In the year following the passage of the National Maximum Speed Law, car crash mortality fell 16.4%. Additionally, following the elimination of set speed limits nationally, in states which did not change their speed rules, highway deaths fell again. On the other side, crash fatalities following the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act increased 9.1% in states which changed their speed limits from 55 to 65 MPH. With the elimination of all national set speed limits in 1995, urban highway deaths increased 4%. In addition to the over 12,000 deaths considered to be a direct result of higher speeds, the study found over 36,500 injuries as a result of those fatal crashes. A federal speed limit is likely to have similar results today as it did in 1974, reducing highway deaths by a comparable percentage.

The second "P" highlights the Planet. In this case, the environmental impacts of high-speed highway driving. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2007, there were 254,403,082 vehicles registered in the United States. On average, each vehicle was driven 11,900 miles annually, consuming approximately 1 gallon of fuel for every 17.2 miles traveled. This results in an annual consumption of 692 gallons per vehicle. According to the EPA, a gallon of gasoline burned in an engine produces 8.8 kilograms (19.4 pounds) of CO2. Using the previous statistics, each vehicle should produce 6,089.6 kilograms (13,424.8 pounds or ~6.7 tons) of CO2 each year. Multiplied by the total number of registered vehicles in the country, and the results show that American driving habits culminate in the release of 1,549,060,366,298 kilograms (1,707,655,248 tons) of CO2 annually.

So what does this have to do with a Federal speed limit? Higher speeds require more energy to maintain, and the energy source in most vehicles is gasoline (or a petroleum product, including diesel). A basic rule of thumb is that, once at highway speeds, the energy required to fight aerodynamic drag increases exponentially. Put simply, if speed doubles, the energy required to do so quadruples. For a vehicle doing 50 MPH in one run and 100 MPH in another, it will have burned twice the fuel in the latter test (4 times higher consumption in half the time). According to research by Consumer Reports on a stock Toyota Camry, the vehicle was consuming at a rate of 40 MPG at 55 MPH, however, it fell to 35 MPG once accelerated to 65 MPH. At 75, it was down to 30 MPG. Assuming that car was a perfect national average example it would be driving 11,900 miles, with 45% on the highway, and 55% in the city. Gleaning the appropriate amount of miles for highway driving only, the vehicle was driven 5,355 miles at high speeds. If the driver kept the vehicle at its optimum speed of 55 MPH, they would have consumed 133.875 gallons, releasing 1,178.1 kilograms (2,597.175 pounds or ~1.3 tons) of CO2. However, if the vehicle was consistently doing 75 MPH, the consumption would be 178.5 gallons, releasing an additional 392.7 kilograms (865.725 pounds or ~0.4 tons) of CO2.

This may not seem like a big deal, but remember those national totals? Let's assume that every registered vehicle drove at 75 MPH on the highways, and that the percentage decrease in consumption was similar (75% of optimum) on all vehicles (this is an under-exaggeration, as many vehicles with poor aerodynamics decrease much faster than the example Camry). Now, we will assume the national average of highway MPG is 25 (deliberately overestimated, considering combined is only slightly over 17 MPG). Achieving only 75% of this value in real-world driving provides an actual highway average of 18.75 MPG. Now, this isn't taking into account the minimal decrease in engine operation time (due to the faster speed). Such a value would likely pose as only a fraction of the additional usage, since the consumption curve increases exponentially, not in a linear fashion. Regardless, such a mileage reduction equates to annual CO2 emissions in the United States, simply as a result of driving 75 instead of 55 MPH, of 159,846,544,482.24 kilograms (352,388,973,063.12 pounds or ~176,194,486 tons). Astounding in its own right, more so when it is seen that it is 10% of total consumer automobile emissions in the U.S.!

Getting outside of the complicated math, that value bears repeating. It is entirely possible (as shown above), that up to 10% of nationwide passenger vehicle fuel-based CO2 emissions are avoidable simply by slowing down! Of all climate change policies in deliberation, this seems to be a "low-hanging fruit". Please understand, these values are simply for presentation and educational purposes. While determined to the highest accuracy, actual results may vary due to a variety of factors. Nonetheless, the writer maintains its significance.

So the first P, People, showed how lower highway speeds reduce the number of fatal accidents. The second P, Planet, provided an environmental rationale to driving slower. The final P, Profit, aims to provide a financial incentive to accomplish the same goal.

At the time of writing, the current national average for regular gasoline is $2.585. Using the values determined above, the national expenditure of driving all those vehicles on the highways for 5,355 miles at 25 MPG is $140,864,767,324.97. However, at the adjusted value of 18.75 MPG, the cost increases to $187,819,689,766.63. The cost savings potential nationally as a result of driving slower is an astronomical $46,954,922,441.66. Per vehicle, this results in an annual savings of $184.57. That type of return resembles the recent tax rebates, and yet this needed no public or private expenditure!

We hope this has been an informative look into the true costs of high-speed highway driving.

Summary of "3P"-based analysis on lower highway speeds:

People

Over 12,500 deaths could have been avoided since 1987

Over 36,500 injuries within fatal car accidents could have been avoided in same time period

Fatality rates increase following speed limit increases

Fatality rates decrease in states with no speed limit changes

Planet

MPG falls as speed exceeds 55 MPH

Potentially 10% of nationwide passenger vehicle fuel-based CO2 emissions a result of high-speed driving

Profit

National cost savings through speed reductions on highways: $46,954,922,441.66 annually

Per vehicle cost savings: $184.57 annually

Joseph Winn is the President/CEO GreenProfit Solutions, Inc., an environmental consulting and benefits firm specializing in assisting small and medium size companies in Going Green. You may contact Joseph at:
jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com
http://www.greenprofitsolutions.com

Slowing a Nation - Maltese Speed Limits

The Maltese roads have, from time to time, come under the scrutiny of experts. The experts come up with ways to make our roads more safe, efficient or both. The latest example of this manifests itself in the fact that a large number of Maltese "highways" now carry a 60km/h speed limit; 20km less than the national limit. Go over that limit and a little birdie will take a photo that will cost you dearly. A considerable number of people have voiced concern about this ridiculous limit and are arguing that if the national speed limit is currently set at 80km/h, than these roads should have the 60km signs replaced by 80km.

These are some of the topics that have been raised.   

60 is safer - part 1.  

It is true that 60km/h is less likely to harm a driver or pedestrian than 80. With the same reasoning 40 is safer than 60 and 20 is safer than 40. If parliament passed laws banning the use of cars and limiting us to use bicycles, there would be far less severe accidents than what happens with a car. And with bicycles we would definitely be a healthier nation since commuting from one place to another would no longer be a sedentary event.   The reality is that, in a complex society such as ours, there are risks taken for the sake of efficiency. Setting the limit to 80km/h is one of them, although if this limit is coupled with socially sensible measures the risks can be zoomed into zero. Examples of such measures are better educated drivers, roadworthy vehicles and the elimination of old vehicles that do not conform to modern developments in the field of vehicle safety. Having roads of good quality also goes a long way to keeping the number of accidents on our roads down.   How many times, whilst driving, we see the driver in front of us swerving in a dangerous manner to avoid a pot hole or to find the better side of the road? And what about the leaking Santa Venera tunnel?. How many drivers have lost control of their car for a few seconds when they fall victim to an unsuspecting shower because their window was turned down? Why does it seem that issues related to safety that do not have any money-making (tax) potential never get done or get done so slowly? And while on the subject of safety, tunnels and water, one hopes that experts are sure that the Santa Venera tunnel water erosion happening will not, in some future date, result in an ugly accident.   There is no statistical evidence that can tell us how many fatalities / serious injuries there have been on these major arteries because drivers where going at 80. A senior leading traffic expert even made a statement to this effect.  

60km/h is efficient.  

60km/h is anything but environmentally efficient. At 60km/h, a 2008 Toyota Auris' shift gear down light switches on, telling the driver to shift gear from 5th to 4th gear. Many modern vehicles are unable to keep the 5th gear engaged at this low speed, something they have no problem with at the more reasonable 80.   The chart from the page fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml (note that values are miles per hour not km per hours -- 60 km is equivalent to 37 miles, while 80 km would translate to 50 miles). This page belongs to the U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website. It is clear that anyone who has made claims of efficiency has not done his research well.  

This is not a tax.  

The absolute majority of those who commented negatively about the imposed speed limit said that the ultimate purpose was to tax drivers. With the national speed limit set to 80km/h and many of the effected roads designed to comfortably support traffic running at this speed, for almost all drivers it feels comfortably safe to drive at 80. Many drivers will sooner or later get taxed (sorry fined) for simply driving at what is a naturally popular speed. Let there be speed cameras, but let these do the job they should be designed to do; pick out offenders and not innocent drivers who are using the roads responsibly.  

The speed cameras are duds.  

There has been some talk about the camera boxes being empty and that these are simply intended to slow traffic. Large fraction of the people who use these roads are not contesting the speed cameras per se but the speed limit. And what happens when the speed cameras suddenly move into the empty housings? How many times have we experienced something innocent sliding into our midst and then one fine day it sheds off its sheep skin and raises its head? I predict that if the signs are not adjusted, soon after the issue settles down the cameras will become functional without prior warning or notice. People will discover that the boxes are no longer duds when they start receiving pictures that cost them dearly.  

60 is safer - part 2  

It is common practice for drivers to slow down a few meters short of being spotted by a speed camera. This is not a Maltese invention and has been depicted in adverts, movies, and other forms of art ever since these devices came into being. A basic GPS unit is programmed to store within it the location of speed cameras and to advise the driver to slow down when heading towards a camera. User groups exist with the sole purpose of documenting the location of speed cameras and letting the whole world know. The rate of deceleration depends on the skill of the driver, how much the driver is risk averse, how much s/he trusts the vehicle's speedometer, as well as how late s/he realizes that the speed camera is imminently going to strike.   With the speed limit set at 80, a smaller percentage of people will be over that mark and the average amount of deceleration that is necessary to get under the fine-line is much less than with 60. With the limit set at 60, the number of front-to-rear cases will increase together with associated vehicle repair, whiplash and resulting traffic jams.  

Pleasant Experience  

Driving in Malta is anything but relaxing. Horrible road conditions, polluting vehicles, road rage and vehicle overcrowding all contribute to make the instances when driving is a pleasant experience, short and far apart. Taking away 20 from the maximum speed limit on our main arterial "highways" will definitely take a chunk out of a pleasant driving experience. A few years ago we had experts who, in their wisdom, decided to reduce entire chunks of the Maltese main road network to single lanes. We ended up with (unused) pavements being wider than the roads. Today the situation is that if a driver happens to end up behind a relaxed driver, a car whose top speed is 30km/h or a heavy goods truck, one has to sit quietly and tap the steering wheel or risk getting into an accident (or a fine) by overtaking.  

Conclusion  

It all boils down to the fact that when experts come up with such ideas, they are not experts or are experts who have been fed wrong information or are experts who have not done their homework properly or are experts who have an ultimate ulterior motive. This is nothing new; in the early to mid 1950's the first strong evidence of how cigarettes damaged one's health became public knowledge. The smoking manufacturer's lobby produced medical experts who claimed and wrote otherwise. Some of their advertising of the time even claimed benefits to smoking. The Tobacco Industry set up an institute called the Tobacco Industry Research Committee and it was headed by no other than the former head of the National Cancer Institute (later renamed to American Cancer Society). But in the 1950's the number of people who spoke out against cigarette was sufficiently large and strong to change the course of history. With our roads the popular voice is to add a little arc to the top of the 60 signs. For the benefit of Maltese and foreign drivers one hopes this will happen soon.  

You can help  

Author: Alan C. Bonnici
Email: chribonn@gmail.com
URL: http://www.onNeutral.com
Comments are welcome.