A Solid Plan to Slow Down and Save Fuel
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
The News & Advance
Published: July 16, 2008
With gasoline prices at $4 per gallon in Central Virginia, would you be willing to take steps to increase fuel mileage to save money at the pump? You’re probably thinking, yes, I would.
So far, so good. Now, would you be willing to return to a national speed limit of 55 mph to get more miles to the gallon and perhaps reduce the price of fuel?
That’s what Sen. John Warner, R-Va., proposed earlier this month as the nation continued to struggle with rising fuel prices that have no end in sight.
Warner asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He also said he wants to know if the administration would support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.
Earlier this week, President Bush announced he was removing the ban on offshore drilling for oil, but he will need approval from Congress before that can happen. And even if the ban were removed, it would be years before any oil or natural gas could be extracted from beneath the ocean.
In 1974, Congress set a national speed limit of 55 mph because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. That speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 per gallon.
Those were the days. Gasoline averages $4.10 a gallon today nationwide, with oil prices reaching $145 a barrel.
Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day — or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption. At the same time, the lower speed limit helped reduce the number of traffic fatalities by as many as 4,000.
“Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles in America’s highway system from 1974 to 2008,” Warner wrote Bodman, “one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater.”
The Energy Department’s Web site says that fuel efficiency drops rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated to cost motorists “essentially an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs,” Warner said in his letter.
So does driving 10 miles an hour slower really make a difference in gas savings? A Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter checked it out recently on a drive from Richmond to Williamsburg on Interstate 64.
At 55 mph, the 2008 Chevy Impala’s digital driver information center reported the car got an average of 36.4 miles per gallon on the 55-mile drive. Coming back to Richmond at a speed of 65, the car’s average was 30.9 miles per gallon. It took about nine minutes longer to cover the 55 miles at 55 mph.
The Energy Department says driving 55 instead of 65 would increase fuel economy by 9.7 percent. But the Times-Dispatch mileage test showed a 17.8 percent improvement.
That could result in a considerable savings at the gas pump. And if enough drivers were willing to keep their speeds at no higher than 55, that could result in a considerable reduction in the amount of oil imported daily from overseas. And with the reduction in demand, the price of gas could drop.
It is clear that driving at the slower speed of 55 conserves fuel — and money. Wouldn’t you be willing to give the 55 mph speed limit another chance to conserve both? It could also produce less dependence on foreign oil, which is a goal that every American should be aiming toward.
Sen. Warner is right. Let’s give the lower speed limit a new try.
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on July 18, 2008 at 10:00 am
bigjimmmmmmmm,
If you look closely at the Heritage Foundation report, you will see that the numbers came from the Office of Management and Budget. The numbers speak for themselves.
Do you have a link to refute the Heritage report? You need to stop believing everything you read on DNC.org.
Your VERY biased statement “Further, if you make most of the money and hold onto it for generation after generation you should have to pay most of the taxes.“ Did Bill Gates have all of his wealth given to him or did he work for it? Maybe Warren Buffett?
Do you have any evidence to back up your ludicrous statement? You have got to be a Lynchburg native. This is a common argument around here. They speak of “old money” like it is a sin to come from a successful family. I’m more worried about 2nd and 3rd generation government dependants than I am old money. Come to think of it, are you “Jim” on WLNI?
I used the term “feeble mind” simply because you live up to that term. You have no facts to back up your statements. I fully support your use of the first amendment, but living in la-la land without basing it on facts is so indicative of the Obamessiah supporters. They think we should all get a free lunch and have “big oil”, “big business”, big bad wolf pay for it. I’m not afraid of Obama or McCain winning. I’m afraid of America losing. You have proven through your posts over and over that you are incapable of understanding simple economics.
Can anyone out in Obamessiah land give me one example of a country that has taxed and spent itself into prosperity?
The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( bigjimm ) on July 18, 2008 at 9:15 am
Luv you quote the Heritage Foundation? Good grief. You are very limited in your outlook and it limits your reach.
As a member of the middle class I know as a group we are under increasing pressure due to a shrinking industrial base. The fact that we are working more and more hours for very little real income growth and the rich are getting richer and richer, well, it speaks for itself.
Further, if you make most of the money and hold onto it for generation after generation you should have to pay most of the taxes.
Luv2b you continue to call people names and use terms such as “feeble mind”, why is it you try to lower people that disagree with you to what must be your natural level?
I won’t respond to you anymore, it hurts my back to stoop so low.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on July 18, 2008 at 6:37 am
bigjimm,
I don’t know why I bother to do research for you, but I like you, so here is the numbers for welfare spending today.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
To give everyone the readers digest version, in 2000, we spent 434 Billion dollars on welfare. About $5600 per each family that pays taxes.
It goes back to my previous post, “If you reward a behaviour, you get more of it…“
As far as working for the rich, wealth envy bigjimm, pure and simple. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT. Take a breath and try not to lust after your neighbors possesions.
The readers digest for this one? The top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.4% of the taxes. The top 25% paid 86% of the taxes. How much is enough jimm? How much “wealth redistribution” is fair in your feeble mind, and how much “wealth redistribution” before it becomes socialism?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
The current field of democRATS simply do not have the comprehension of facts to get past the kool-aid of Obamaessiah right now. They are enjoying the religious experience of the moment, and are not even thinking how we will pay for all of his spending. My biggest problem with Bush and the republicans are their spending programs. That is why I voted them out two years ago. Now what am I supposed to do when I can’t stand spending under Bush, and Obama wants to spend more?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( valpojoe ) on July 17, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Individuals are free at this very moment to limit their speed to 55 mph if they wish! Why make it a law? Doesn’t anyone value freedom anymore?
The people of Germany don’t have a speed limit on the autobahn - aren’t they supposed to be way ahead of us in terms of energy conservation?
Please tell me I don’t have to put a new radar detector on my Christmas list!
Why not bring back all of Jimmy Carter’s great policies while we’re at it?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( bigjimm ) on July 17, 2008 at 11:15 am
So luv2b, we are paying higher taxes for all of those people on welfare? Really? Have you looked at the numbers? You’re good about googling and pasting a link. Since welfare reform, a Clinton thing, and a strong economy since 1992, things have changed quite a bit, but if all you’re interested in hearing and learning are Limbaughesque sound bites, well, I can see why you don’t quite have a grasp on modern reality.
We hard working Americans seem to be working hard for the rich, not for the poor.
What this nation needs is leadership on this issue but little King George wants to drill, baby, drill. He is as wrong on this issue as he has been on all of the others.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on July 17, 2008 at 10:20 am
“I believe rewarding responsible behavior”
Thank the god you worship! A liberal finally believes in letting wealthy people keep the money they worked for instead of redistribution of income!
Now where does that leave the windfall profits proponents..
You are not for punishing them because they make a 10% profit margin are you?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Cosmo Wafflefoot ) on July 17, 2008 at 8:57 am
Well, well… then we need laws to force people to live in small houses and government locks on everybody’s thermostat this winter. We need laws to force people to drive instead of fly. And all this waste of gas by people who “need a vacation”...Please! Out door barbecuing should be punishable by no less than a year in jail for it’s waste of propane. Gas powered lawn mowers should be confiscated by the police. If a push mower was good enough for “The Beaver” it’s good enough for all America. Power boats should be baned all together. Operation of Jet-skis should be a hanging offence. I can’t help but wonder where all my “Let the market work..and..Get Government off our backs” friends are this morning? Isn’t ANYBODY out there smart enough to see that the numbers are bogus? The “barrels of oil saved” numbers are based on EVERY car driving 70MPH for EVERY mile driven in America…. and then dropping down to 55MPH. But folks, long before we even think about this, all the NASCAR drivers should be sent before a firing squad to sat an example for our youth. Possession of Dale Earnhardt T-shirts and paraphernalia will of course result in notification of Homeland Security followed by forced relocation to “Re-education Camps” located in Southwestern Idaho.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( avillage ) on July 17, 2008 at 8:49 am
Luv2bliberal talks about those who can afford hybrids should subsidize everyone because they get better mileage. Interesting. I thought conservatives believed in a use tax where those who use the roads more or used more fuel should pay their fair share. Hmmm.
What about those who buy expensive SUV’s including the high price Hummers and who use a disproportionate amount of fuel? Should they receive higher a higher tax? And, what about the idea that most gas sippers outside of hybrids cost much less than mid-size cars?
I’m not sure what the agenda is for luv2bliberal or anyone who wants to do what they want. I believe rewarding responsible behavior, in this case reducing energy consumption, is an incentive to reduce our energy needs. Lower speed limits saves lives and reduces energy needs, both positively affecting all of us. In that case, why in the world would anyone want to increase taxes on a higher gas mileage vehicle.
I’m absolutely amazed. Absolutely.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( David McLoughlin ) on July 17, 2008 at 7:59 am
Excellent editorial and I agree 100%.Little time is saved at higher speeds when ALL factors are considered, but lives,injuries and gas are saved. Its a small price to pay for the benefits.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on July 17, 2008 at 7:57 am
If you can afford a hybrid vehicle, you should have to pay a “hybrid tax” to subsidize all of the people who are not able to afford fuel efficient transportation. Similar to our welfare system, where we punish hard working americans with higher taxes to pay for non-working americans to sit home and watch Jerry Springer. If you can afford an expensive hybrid vehicle, you should pay your “fair share” and help your fellow americans out.
Report Inappropriate Comment