Getting there faster is better (usually). If you get there slower... that just
means your car is running (and generating pollution) that much longer.Slowing traffic is not necessarily the answer. As was pointed out in another
thread... cars sitting at traffic lights get there slower... that isn't
necessarily more efficient, it's just cars running and polluting while they
sit at traffic lights.Everybody going slower on the freeway is also
not necessarily more efficient.If a few drivers who insist on going
slow on the freeway cause traffic slowdowns and even accidents further back in
the backup they cause... it's not good for traffic or the environment.
It's just thousands of people sitting in their cars idling on the freeway
while they clear the cars that ran into each other because somebody was driving
like a grandma in rush hour traffic and people had to break and then people
further back in the backing had to emergency break and eventually
somebody's not paying close enough attention and something bad happens.It's better for everybody to just go the SAME speed (even if
it's faster than 55mph).
Nowhere in the article do I see any acknowledgement that the time of motorists
is valuable, and spending more of it on the road means the motorists have less
time for other valuable activities. I think this reflects a tendency of analysts
to ignore things they can't easily quantify. In other words,
this view is stunningly simplistic.
It makes me nervous when environmental proponents say, "Let's do the
math."First of all, cars today (with 6 speed engines) get great
mileage at high speeds. No need to slow down for that.Second, back
about 15 years we had oxygenated fuel pushed on us, with the claim that it
reduced emissions by up to 10%. It also lowered gas mileage by at least 10%, so
we all burned up more fuel thus offsetting the emissions savings, by producing
emissions from burning even more fuel. Who was the big winner in this program?
Must have been fuel companies, from selling us more expensive oxygenated fuel
all winter. I am sure is helped offset the winter lull in sales nicely. They
sell more fuel and at a higher price. The only real savings in
emissions was from impoverishing families from the high cost of fuel, so they
couldn't afford to drive. Improving traffic flow, to get
commuters home sooner, would eliminate the extra emissions they produce while
idling in traffic jams and would mean their cars run for less time. Faster would
@woolsocks:"Please make sure that all arguments are properly applied
in their correct context. Urban Freeway arguments used against Rural Freeways
does not a convincing case make."Your vehicle will product just
as much polluting smoke in rural driving as it will in urban driving.
Wait one second. This article is apparently written in protest of more 80 mph
speed limits on Utah. But the only highways under consideration for 80 mph
speed limits are rural interstates. The arguments against 80 mph speed limits
that the author uses are urban freeway arguments: fuel efficiency, emissions,
road capacity, and safety to pedestrians and bicyclists. None of these are
issues with the rural interstates under consideration for 80 mph speed limits.
Yes, according to the cited article about the proposed bill, certain
urban freeways are under consideration for higher limits, but not the 80 mph
limits. Perhaps an increase from 65 mph to 70 mph, etc. But this is not
specified in the article. One is led to believe the writer opposes the rural
freeway speed increases. Please make sure that all arguments are
properly applied in their correct context. Urban Freeway arguments used against
Rural Freeways does not a convincing case make.
Also, slowing down will save lives. Statistics show that the major cause of
deaths on freeways/highways is speeding. The life you save by staying within
speed limits may well be your own.
Also as our population ages the slower speed will result in fewer accidents
among the 65+ drivers, cyclists and walkers.