News-Record.com

The quick way is out drill for our own oil! Then we should start looking into to all forms of energy. Wind, solar, and using less. I hope we have found that using corn, for gas, has only raised the price of food. Purchased a box of corn flakes lately? Corn that was $2.12 a bushel last year, was $9.15 for 50 pounds Monday.

Drilling for oil is not the quick way out. The benefits of drilling would be less than you think, and they'd happen years from now.

So, back to the question that was actually asked...

Re-imposing the 55 mph speed limit would save gasoline, but so what? So would outlawing trips of over 20 miles. So would limiting gasoline purchases to no more than 5 gallons. There are plenty of ways to restrict people's freedom that would save gasoline.

But there's another way. Nothing induces conservation like high prices. And we already have those, don't we? So perhaps we can let the price system work, and let people decide for themselves how they'd like to economize on gasoline.

Absolutely yes! We must quickly enact a federally mandated 55 MPH national speed limit and we must set up a new federal police unit to patrol all hiways and byways to make sure the new law is strictly adhered to. Employees of this new federal police unit should be drawn from the ranks of the currently unemployed & underemployed and hiring practices must reflect affirmative action. Of course, all these new federal employees should have adequate union representation.

Andy:

How would the benefits be less than we think? We know what reserves are for the most part (at least proven reserves), so we know pretty much what the benefits of drilling are. For example, there are 4.3 billion barrels of shale oil in North Dakota and Wyoming. We know what the benefit would be, 4.3 billion barrels of oil. At the margin, any new source of oil will, all other things being equal, reduces the price of oil. The fact that it would not bring oil back to $18 a barrel is irrelevant, isn't it, as it will increase the amount of oil available.

And wouldn't oil futures markets, which obviously bet on the price of oil in the future, be immediately impacted by news that there will be more oil in the future? So, even though actual oil coming out of the ground may be a year or two away, those looking long or longer term would have reason to believe that there will be more oil in the future, i.e., less scarcity, which would in fact bring future prices down. Oil companies which are putting oil in storage until it will bring a higher price in the future will have less incentive to do so if they believe that there oil may be worth less in the future because there is more of it, this will make more oil available now, when it could bring a higher price than in the future, which would also put downward pressure on oil prices.

With regard to your third point, we know that as the price of oil (or anything else) other suppliers come into the market. Those who could not produce oil at $20 a barrel but who can produce oil at $100 a barrel will start producing it. So, as prices send signals to producers, more and more oil that was previously unprofitable to drill will become available, i.e. shale oil in North Dakota.

What we seem to be doing, however, is saying we don't want to, or shouldn't produce more oil, but instead rely on conservation or new (noncarbon based) sources of energy. The analysis is incomplete without accounting for the fact that high oil prices will not only encourage folks to conserve, but will also bring more suppliers to the market.

There's another angle here. The optimal speed for fuel efficiency varies by the type of road, the driving conditions, etc., but also by the car. For some high-performance cars, the most fuel-efficient speed for long flat interstate trips (think going to the beach) is well above 55 mph. Forcing drivers of such cars to drive 55 would force them to burn more gasoline per mile than necessary. If the goal is conserving gasoline, that seems silly.

Once again, it comes back to price. If driving 65 or 70 burns so much gasoline that it hurts the driver's pocketbook, the driver can decide for him/herself to drive 55.

Paul, I never said that we should rely solely or even mostly on conservation. I don't have a problem with increased production, but I do have a problem with people overselling the benefits. Yes, of course more production will have the effect of driving down price, or at least slowing its rise. But because prices are determined in a global market, the benefits won't be all that big. The benefit of a lower price will be spread all around the world. It's not like drilling off the N.C. coast will somehow help drivers in this state more than in others. And whatever benefits there are won't be "a year or two" in the future. Try 8-10, and in some places more like 15.

Finally, while new energy sources and technologies are great, they don't happen quickly either (with the possible exception of hybrid technology, which seems like it's already economically feasible, at least on the consumer side of the equation).

As bad an idea as I think reimposing the 55 mph limit would be, at least it would take effect quickly.

I think the best near-term policy is to let prices do what they do, which is alter our behavior. If we don't like high prices (and who does?), then we can drive less, live closer to work, etc. As a society, we can decide to take the hit and finally start investing in mass transit. We're not going to produce our way out of this, so we might as well get used to a high-cost energy future.

Dr. Brod's points are well taken.

Regarding oil futures, I think a move to increase margin requirements, along with an elimination of loopholes designed to bypass regulatory restraints, and requirements to take physical delivery of product might prove beneficial to keeping costs under control..

Returning to the original question, there are many reasons why it makes no sense to re-institute a 55 mph limit.

This policy did not work when it was put in place over three decades ago, and there is no reason to believe it would work today.

Perish the thought. Seriously, does anyone other than those who always believe everyone drives too fast, and a few safety nuts, really think this is a good idea? The last time around this bad idea enraged and frustrated millions, and benefited no one but state and local governments who saw their "take" from tickets increase. Of course it saves fuel - driving 40 mph would save even more (Wind resistance rises with the square of velocity - basic physics), but at the price of tickets, frustration, increased congestion and millions of hours wasted. And to what benefit? It's doubtful it ever saved lives (the increased congestion and greater speed differences created more, not fewer accidents). And when we finally repealed the 55 mph national joke, accidents and fatalities went down.
Has anyone noticed that other countries that use far less fuel than we do per person do not institute draconian, possibly moralistic, speed limits. They tax fuel.
As one of the other posters said, if it is important to further reduce fuel use, tax it up to about $8.00/gallon, and then you will really see usage go down.
It was a dumb idea then and it's still dumb idea now.

Perish the thought. Seriously, does anyone other than those who always believe everyone drives too fast, and a few safety nuts, really think this is a good idea? The last time around this bad idea enraged and frustrated millions, and benefited no one but state and local governments who saw their "take" from tickets increase. Of course it saves fuel - driving 40 mph would save even more (Wind resistance rises with the square of velocity - basic physics), but at the price of tickets, frustration, increased congestion and millions of hours wasted. And to what benefit? It's doubtful it ever saved lives (the increased congestion and greater speed differences created more, not fewer accidents). And when we finally repealed the 55 mph national joke, accidents and fatalities went down.
Has anyone noticed that other countries that use far less fuel than we do per person do not institute draconian, possibly moralistic, speed limits. They tax fuel.
As one of the other posters said, if it is important to further reduce fuel use, tax it up to about $8.00/gallon, and then you will really see usage go down.
It was a dumb idea then and it's still dumb idea now.

55 mph speed limit? Uhhh, didn't we try this before? It worked really, really well that time, did it not? Led to the rise in the use of radar detectors, CB radios, and a general "civil disobedience" attitude on the part of drivers.

And, if 55 would make a meaningful difference, then lets do it right and make the national speed limit 25 mph.

I have already reduced my speed on my daily commute to Durham. I have seen a 2 mpg increase in my range by dropping 5 mph. I see two main problems with dropping the speed limit:

1) My 75 mile commute will take 12 minutes longer, one way. For the person who makes 40,000 a year, $20/hr, that equates to 'costing' them and additional $8 per day.

If I get 29 mpg, now, and travel 150 miles per day - it is roughly taking 5 gallons of gas a day, or approximately $20 per day. If I save 2 mpg for dropping 5 mph, my tank that got 459 miles, now gets 493 - 34 miles further, so my 150 mile trip saves .38 gallons - or $1.52, but that additional 12 minutes costs me - $8 - Why do you think people speed - they make more money than they waste by speeding. Unfortunately the fiscally correct thing to do is to speed and 'save money' while you are doing it. $6.50 almost buys you 2 gallons of fuel - more than enough to compensate for the loss of 2 miles to the gallon.

2) The cost for enforcing the speed limit will be incredible. People already confuse the I-85 sign with a speed limit of 85 mph. Unless the new speed limit is enforced, and the courts impose the prescribed fines - rather than reducing for faulty speedometers, or giving prayers of the court, then people will speed with impunity. There are not enough troopers to stop all the people traveling at 85 mph right now - what will it be like when 75 is the new 85?

Andrew is correct. We are seeing people drop their speeds in order to save some money. As the costs increase, the time value of money difference will reduce to the point that it may make sense for more people to drive slower - from a cost perspective.

Until we have an option, regular mass transit - Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, Heavy rail - along 40/85 connecting major cities, and until we reduce the number of lanes of traffic to allow for mass transit along the same route (carrot and stick at the same time - reducing lane supply while increasing transit supply,) there will only be a minor amount of interest in changing our travel behaviors.

We need both the carrot and the stick: Money (tax credits) to place low mileage cars with high mileage cars (Hybrids, FlexFuels, solar, CNG); Fueling stations for alternative forms of fuel (E85, Biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric; Credits for transit riders (rebates/refunds on bus/rail passes.); more money for bike trails and sidewalks; Increasing the ability for kids to walk to school versus taking the bus, or having parents drive their kids to school (back in 1995 it was estimated that 25% of morning congestion was related to parents driving children to and from school.) The list can go on and on.

There is an interesting story on the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council Website (read the article first.)

The article starts by saying:

"In 1975, a gallon of gasoline cost 61 cents, a hamburger was 35 cents, a new car was $6,500, and a bushel of corn sold for about $2.50. Thirty years later, the prices for gasoline, hamburgers, and new cars had increased substantially, but the price for a bushel of corn hovered just above $2.00. While the cost of most other commodities and consumer goods had climbed considerably since
the mid-1970s, the price ofcorn languished.

Corn prices averaged just $2.35 per bushel between 1975 and 2005 and topped $3 as an annual average only three times. If livestock and poultry producers could count on one thing in the 30-year span, it was cheap corn.

But beginning in the fall of 2006, a number of factors began to push corn prices significantly higher. The cash price for corn in central Illinois in September 2006 was $2.21 per bushel. Today, the price stands at $4.91. Because of the low (and relatively static) price of corn over the past 30 years, the escalation of corn prices in the last year and a half has been unfamiliar to corn users worldwide."

Just as we had been paying less than inflation adjusted prices for fuel - all these years - corn prices were artificially low - as supply increased, and demand did not, prices stabilized or 'fell' when adjusted for inflation. "Everything" is catching up with inflation all at once.

Imposition of a national 55 mph speed limit is a one-size-fits-all band-aid that would be an attempt to get lawmakers and car manufacturers off the hook for real solutions to our energy woes. It would penalize larger states because the increased time to travel greater distances between cities would decrease productivity through longer lag times for goods and fewer meetings for business people. It would also discourage against using more energy-efficient auto travel instead of air travel because trips that are currently feasible and practical by car would become much less so in the context of work and vacation schedules. A lower national limit would fail to acknowledge the significant differences in vehicular efficiency that allow aerodynamic, highly-geared modern cars to travel faster with less fuel than the cars of the 1970s. We have already tried the national 55 mph speed limit, and Nixon’s folly proved to be a national failure which has been replaced by state-by-state transportation decisions which factor in distances, urban density, and highway condition. Consumers can make their own decisions about how to drive based upon the price of fuel and the vehicles that they choose. We need more transportation choices of efficient vehicles, safe and convenient mass transit, and alternative fuels, including fully electric and methanol.

Instead of dropping all highway speed limits to 55, I would recommend dropping the higher limits 5 mph....70 to 65, 65 to 60, 60 to 55. This would help and wouldn't be that hard to adapt to. However, drilling in USA territories needs to happen as soon as possible. I realize this wouldn't have an immediate impact, but it needs to be done for our future.
Thanks....