Your Carbon Tire Print At 55 MPH

Recently Virginia Senator John Warner proposed bringing back the federally mandated 55 MPH speed limit. His argument is that it will reduce carbon emissions and save many thousands of barrels of oil per day. Just about every one-size-fits-all federal government mandate comes with unintended consequences. Is bringing back the 55 MPH speed limit any different? Can other government imposed "green" transportation regulations help us "save the planet"?

Ever since the invention of the automobile governments at all levels have imposed regulations on the industry, drivers, and the roads people drive upon. There have been laws for registering vehicles, mandatory safety standards, licensing, emission controls, speed limits, seat belts, child seats, driving under the influence of various substances, carrying certain materials, using the proper tires for road conditions, traffic signals, and more. As a libertarian I certainly take issue with many of these laws, but I've always had a personal conflict between the purist in me who'd like absolutely no regulation and the pragmatist in me that realizes some of these laws may be necessary.

The U.S. Congress with the help of the Nixon administration passed the National Maximum Speed Speed Limit Sign ChangeLaw (NMSL) in 1974 as part of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. The law capped the maximum speed limit at 55 miles per hour. The goal at the time of passage was to conserve gasoline in response to the 1973 oil crisis. In the years immediately following passage the impact on conserving gas proved to be minimal. The Heritage Foundation made the case in a 1986 article citing a study by the Department of Transportation.

"The notion that the 55 mile per hour speed limit helps conserve fuel has worked its way into the conventional wisdom so thoroughly that few drivers even question it. Yet the evidence shows that the benefits of the limit are minimal. As early as 1978, Dr. John Eberhart of the Department of Transportation's Office of Driver Research found that the limit at best reduces fuel consumption one percent. This would equal 73,000 barrels of oil daily. Yet his findings did not stop the Department of Transportation from continuing to claim that the NMSL could save up to 400,000 barrels of oil per day. Independent studies, meanwhile, indicate that the actual savings, if any, would be even lower than Eberhart estimated. These studies project fuel savings of one-half of one percent." (Source: Heritage Foundation)

Once advocates of the limit realized the law did little to conserve fuel they shifted to a more effective approach. They focused on safety and touted the slogan, "55 Saves Lives" to the masses. This worked for a longer period of time until it was determined to be false.

There is little argument that driving slower and maintaining a consistent pace uses less fuel. Estimates by the U.S. Department Of Energy suggest the potential for up to a 33% savings on highway gas mileage by simply altering driving behavior. The savings goes down to 5% with city driving. In a perfect world all drivers would follow this savior behavior on their own, but in many cases it's not even possible to follow it. Take the simple case of the rush hour commute in countless cities. The so called highway becomes a parking lot inundated with fuel inefficient idling and slow moving vehicles. The driver is forced into bad behavior. The speed limit does not apply. It is these types of incalculable variables that turn perfect statistics into imperfect guidelines. Once the traffic eases and the commuter is running late do you think he/she then follows the speed limit? Not likely.

Assuming the government statistics are accurate, the question then becomes does mandating a 55 MPH speed limit actually force drivers to drive 55 MPH? A 2006 Wall Street Journal article gives us an answer:

"Jim Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association, says that by the early 1990s "compliance with the 55 mph law was only about 5%--in other words, about 95% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit." Now motorists can coast at these faster speeds without being on the constant lookout for radar guns, speed traps and state troopers. Americans have also arrived at their destinations sooner, worth an estimated $30 billion a year in time saved, according to the Cato study."

This is a major reason why a mandatory 55 MPH speed limit does not conserve an appreciable amount of fuel. However, does facing reality mean we should just abandon the idea? After all, isn't it better to err on the side of conservation even if the conservation may be negligible? We should certainly encourage less fuel consumption but mandating it through a national 55 MPH speed limit is not the answer. In fact it is probably unconstitutional. The Feds got around this in 1974 through what amounted to government sponsored bribery. They didn't require the states to comply with the speed limit law, but if any state did not comply, federal transportation funds were denied to that state. Naturally, the states capitulated. This is highly problematic for a Constitution loving freedom fanatic to accept.

One the more insiduous unintended consequences of lowering the speed limit to 55 MPH is that it could hurt our already floundering economy. For truckers that deliver much of our food and consumer products time is money and a matter of success or failure. Forcing them to drive slower (assuming they obey the law) means deliveries will take longer to reach their destinations.

Luckily there are more palatable options. The best option is to merely allow the free market to function. Evidence of this is already apparent. Breaching the $4/gallon gas barrier has begun to limit drivers on the roads this year. Business Week reported on this a few months ago:

"Traffic levels are trending downward nationwide. Preliminary figures from the Federal Highway Administration show it falling 1.4% last year. Now, with nationwide gasoline prices having passed the inflation-adjusted record of $3.40 a gallon set back in 1981, the U.S. Energy Information Administration is predicting that gasoline consumption will actually fall 0.3% this year. That would be the first annual decline since 1991. Others believe the falloff in consumption is steeper than the government's numbers show. "Our canaries out there tell us they are seeing demand drop much more considerably than the fraction the EIA is talking about," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, a Gaithersburg (Md.) market research firm."

Less consumption can also be encouraged through the promotion of carpooling and public transit. Citing the high cost of gas can be a persuasive argument to the average commuter. Another idea is to encourage companies to utilize a four day work week. The hours can remain the same by switching to 10 hour days, or implementing telecommuting. Some people commute several hours to work each way each day. If enough organizations participate it could save many thousands of barrels of oil a day. All of these ideas can be encouraged by federal, state, and local governments through substantial tax credits/deductions for the companies that implement them.

Bringing back the National Maximum Speed Law to curb our massive oil consumption is a noble effort on the surface, but the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Other methods can be utilized to greater effect. Find new and more effective ways to educate the public about how conservative driving behavior has a direct correlation to lowering fuel consumption. Regulating behavior rarely works as intended and it is far from necessary to undermine the Constitution in order to reduce our carbon tire print. Since fuel prices see no signs of reversing, ultimately it will be the free market that decides. That is unless the 55 MPH regulation pushers get their way.