LJWorld.com/Green
Welcome to our ongoing project, LJWorld.com/Green. Here you can find tips on how to make your life environmentally friendly and read stories about what others in the community are doing to live a more green lifestyle. Eat local, conserve resources, be green.
Topeka — State officials are considering a proposal to lower the speed limit on Kansas highways from 70 mph to 65 mph as a way to reduce climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions.
"Sixty-five was not seen as such a huge change," Liz Brosius, executive director of the Kansas Energy Council, said Monday. "That was some of the thinking behind it."
In Kansas, 70 mph speed limits exist on segments of interstates, some divided highways and the Kansas Turnpike.
Lowering the speed limit was recommended by the KEC Greenhouse Gas Policy Committee. The committee's work will be considered by the full KEC on Aug. 13.
A drop in speed may even gain some political torque as a fuel-saver during times of record fuel prices, officials said.
"I would be surprised if it doesn't go through," said Sarah Dean, of Lawrence, who serves on the Greenhouse Gas panel. In general, each 5 mph increase in speed increases fuel consumption from 7 percent to 23 percent, Brosius said.
The Greenhouse panel also suggested that perhaps lawmakers consider increases in fines for speed violations and repeal of the law that states violations of less than 10 mph over the speed limit in 55 mph to 70 mph zones not count as moving violations.
Recently, the American Trucking Association recommended a national 65 mph speed limit because of record fuel prices.
"The signs are troubling. We are concerned about fuel's direct impact on our industry and also its effects on the nation's economy," said Bill Graves, former Kansas governor and current ATA president and chief executive. "The industry is doing its part to conserve fuel, but we need help."
Tom Whitaker, executive director of the Kansas Motor Carriers Association, said that his group, which includes 1,162 trucking companies, doesn't take a stand on a specific speed limit. But the group advocates that speed limits should be uniform throughout the nation, not differentiate between trucks and cars, and be strictly enforced.
Whitaker said, however, the increasing price of diesel has hit trucking firms hard.
"As fuel prices go up, bankruptcies go up," he said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
A mad scramble for an ever-dwindling resource is a fool's errand.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Make the speed limit 100km/h. Drag the U.S. out of the 19th century.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
I think that, after the first sonic barrier is breached, fuel efficiency increases.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
While reducing speed on the highway will reduce fuel consumption, what really is the effect of a 5 mph reduction on CO2 emissions? While this may be true, it would be nice to see some data regarding the impact supporting their hypothesis...In the meantime let's accelerate development of alternative energy resources. Even if we do "drill here/now", it won't have an appreciable impact on fuel prices in the short-term. Neither will alternative energy sources, but petroleum based energy sources-no matter how or where derived-aren't going to last forever. I'd rather focus on alternative sources of energy and address that which will otherwise become our legacy and our children's burden. Freeing ourselves from the need to voraciously consume petroleum products can only enhance our environment, promote entrepreneurship and economic development and enhance our national security by reducing the tsunami of cash headed overseas.
The_Voice_of_Reason (anonymous) says…
XD40,Throwing old solutions at new problems isn't going to fix the mess we're in these days. What we need is plug in hybrids here. Plug in hybrids now. Or 100% electrics that can run off low or no carbon electricity. Those existed over ten years ago but were scrapped by GM because there "wasn't enough demand." Opps! Plus getting shale oil out of the ground is still very close to a zero sum game. Meaning the amount of energy required to collect it, almost out weighs the energy you get out of it. In my personal opinion what this country needs to do, is have a Manhattan style project to come up with new solutions for what we're facing, and abandon this notion that drilling for peak oil is going to solve anything.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
You know tang, there's a bit of allure to speed limit signs that say 770 mph. I'm sure Sammy Hagar would support this!
Larzia (Jake Esau) says…
Wasn't the state considering raising the speed limit two years ago?
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
Voice, I concur. I have likened it to the JFK's appeal to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60's. Equally challenging and an even more worthy endeavor, IMHO.
ithink (anonymous) says…
Reducing carbon emissions is an individual responsibility and decision.Let's consider a trip from Lawrence to Denver, about 600 miles. Suppose I drive a 30 mpg highway at 65 mph car. Then I'll consume about 20 gallons of gasoline. Given the numbers in the article, if I drive at 70 mph I'll consume 21.4 gallons (7%) up to 24.6 gallons (23%). At $4 per gallon this will cost me between $5.60 and $18.40 in gas. At the current federal minimum wage, $6.55 per hour, this represents between 50 minutes of work to about 170 minutes of work. Driving at 70 mph versus 65 mph gets me to Denver about 39 minutes faster. At minimum wage, that is about $4.25. So, my real difference is about $1.35 and $14.15.Should I have the freedom to trade my work for my driving?The article states, "In general, each 5 mph increase in speed, increases fuel consumption from 7 percent to 23 percent, Brosius said." If we take the inverse, each 5 mph decrease in speed reduces fuel consumption from 7 to 23 percent, then at 40 mph (minimum Interstate speed) I should get between 42 mpg and 84 mph. Few cars today achieve that measure. So, what's up with the published numbers? Is it true that if we drove 40 mph across Kansas to Denver we would get 42 mpg up to 84 mpg in our conventional cars? I don't think so, not in my car. The published numbers are questionable.Why does the article stop at 65 mph? Why not 55 mph as decades ago? Perhaps, rather than based on facts, 65 mph might be politically acceptable, rather than understanding the actual science, engineering, and personal behavior. Let's do the science, engineering, and personal behavior.All individuals have the opportunity to slow down to conserve fuel, even truckers. Let this be an individual decision, not a state mandate. We all need to reduce fuel consumption. Let us each find our own way to reduce carbon emissions. We might drive slower, we might purchase small fuel efficient vehicles, we might purchase hybrids. Let us choose.
mondojeepin (anonymous) says…
This is frickin' ludicrious. The speed limit should be 75 or 80, and if you want to go 65, fine. State mandate? Are you serious? This is an individual's decision. Makes about as much sense as that moron girl who stopped me downtown a few weeks back asking if I wanted to sign a petition to stop global warming...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
From what I understand, the average car gets its best gas mileage somewhere between 35 and 45 mph, if the speed can be continuously maintained. Cars could be engineered to get much better gas mileage at even lower speeds, but as ithink points out, at this time, lowering the speed limit to 65 mph is probably the best that can be done, politically.Lowering the speed limit would increase safety, as well, and given how inherently dangerous cars and trucks are as a means of mass transportation and freight hauling, this sounds like a good idea to me.
Pro_Counsel (anonymous) says…
>>>>>"I would be surprised if it doesn't go through," said Sarah Dean, of Lawrence, who serves on the Greenhouse Gas panel.Judging by the responses so far, I hope Sarah has a high capacity for surprise.I'm willing to bet that the legislature has other committees, interests, lobbyists, etc., that they pay more attention to than the Greenhouse Gas panel.
riverat (Joe Hyde) says…
Two voluntary acts will help everyone get better fuel economy and thereby save lots of money.1) When driving on a divided 4-lane highway such as K-10 or Interstate 70, leave home a few minutes earlier and once you're out on the highway just relax, camp out in the right-hand lane and drive no faster than 60 mph. 55mph works even better. Drivers wanting to go faster can easily pass you by using the left lane. Put in your favorite CD or cassette tape and chill out.2) Increase the air pressure in your tires to a minimum of 35psi all the way around (more air pressure if you are carrying a heavy load). This pressure increase will make your tires harder, which results in reduced rolling resistance and less heat buildup in the tire's internal structure (especially the vulnerable sidewalls). Your vehicle will accelerate faster, handle better in turns, and it will stop better.Try these simple voluntary things; you'll like the cost-savings result.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"And if the 10 mile under and over is "repealed" then the drivers can drive 75 and not have a moving violation."-hawkHuh?Hawk, how does the 10 mph "under" portion of your statement work? As for the "over", if this law is repealed, any speeding violation will be used not only for DMV action against drivers, but will be available for insurance underwriting purposes as well.The 10 mph non-moving violation "cushion" serves to keep relatively minor highway speeding violations from becoming draconian. The state gets to keep their fines/penalties while preventing insurers from adversely rating you on the basis of what the state apparently believed was a minor traffic offense. It also takes into consideration inadvertent violations resulting from inaccurate speedometers, non-stock tire sizes, geographic features, etc.It doesn't affect me too much one way or the other unless they start cracking down on those "scofflaws" who go 72-75 mph in a 70 zone. For what it's worth, I think the price of gas has slowed a lot of people down all by itself.
KUweatherman (Curtis Lange) says…
Um, no. Interstate speed limits need to go UP to 75, not down to 65. Stupid tree huggers.
szxty1 (anonymous) says…
KEC is mandating fuel consumption through highway speed regulation and revenue generation through the enforcement of their near sighted proposal. Did you know that for every 100lbs of vehicle weight reduction you can gain 6% fuel efficiency? Also, 30 lbs of carbon fiber replaces 200lbs of steel. With all due respect, let's not manipulate the public by pulling at their purse strings. We are already changing our driving habits because of the energy crunch. So, unless you are going to pay for my next tank of gas, don't legislate my personal fuel conservation plan.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
riverat: I agree we should inflate our tires to the levels recommended by the car and tire manufacturers. We also need to check pressure levels regularly and before taking trips.Doesn't increasing tire pressures beyond levels recommended by manufacturers actually enhance the likelyhood of blowouts from heat build-up, increase tire wear and reduce handling especially in low traction situations such as rain/snow as a result of the smaller tire "footprint" on the road? Just wondering-that's what I always heard.
srj (anonymous) says…
70 is fine, and let the market correct gas prices. We drove almost 10 Billion less miles this May then last May, (which OPEC was afraid of and knew would happen) and the prices are dropping.
pace (anonymous) says…
A lot of solutions to problems are simple and been done. Drive a little slower is great for me. I would encourage a 55 nationwide. Bike lanes in town instead of listening to the one hard headed biker who is "president of the local bike club". Slow down, walk more, bike safely, quit whining and live long. Why spend half your life paying and going for things that are crap and end up cluttering your life.
compmd (anonymous) says…
szxty1,Unfortunately, carbon fiber is not a drop in replacement for steel. What do you do when you go out to your car at the grocery store and notice the person parked next to you bumped into your car? On a steel skinned door, you go "darn it" and wonder if it will bang out. On a carbon fiber door, you scream expletives, because if it cracked, you have to replace the entire body panel and possibly its substructure.Composites are expensive and extremely difficult to repair. Heck, only now are we building the first airliner with a carbon fiber fuselage. The technology is going to take a while to trickle down from airplanes and half million dollar cars down to Joe Sixpack's sedan.As far as where your best mileage is attained, that depends on your engine power curve, transmission gear ratios, final drive ratio, vehicle aerodynamics, vehicle load, road contact area, and weather conditions. I have a car that gets its best mileage at 80mph. Granted, thats only about 15mpg, but it was not built for economy, it was built to go fast.Hybrids are not the answer, their drivetrains are ridiculously complicated. Electrics are not the answer, it just moves the fuel source. With the amount of electronic engine control now available, multifuel diesel engines are what we should be going after. We know what we're doing with those and can do really great things with diesel engines. Reinventing the car (how many successful electrics are there again?) is not a short term project. We can put more efficient diesels on the road *today* and continue working on other ideas.
Bone777 (anonymous) says…
Good way to get green. My green, because I am use to driving 70...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Stopping distance chart:http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/stoppingdistance.shtmlSorry, couldn't find a cool youtube link.
merrill (anonymous) says…
All gasoline pollutes which is the primary problem. Cost is secondary.The faster one drives the more pollution. We have set our own highway speed limits 55-62 mph. No problem. No significant time loss. The mpg values on car stickers are meaningless at speeds above 65mph. In town driving really sucks the gas.
igby (anonymous) says…
This is not worth the cost too even change the signs. Whoever is behind this is not aware that fuel injection engines get better mileage and burn cleaner at higher speeds than lower speeds. Cars don't have carbs anymore. FYIWhat fools.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"1. Driving to Denver at 80 mph in 6 hours, or, 2. driving to denver at 60 for 8?"WTF are you talking about? It's 568 miles to Denver from Lawrence. At 70 mph, the legal speed limit, with 1 1/2 hours worth of breaks, it takes 9.6 hours to drive there (even at 80, with the same amount of break time, it'll take you 8.6 hours.) If the speed limit is lowered to 65, with similar break times, it'll take you 10.3 hours. So the difference in drive times between 70 mph to 65 mph is about 37 minutes, or about a 6% increase in drive time. Granted, some people think that those few minutes are more important than any consideration for anybody or anything else they share the planet with, but public policy should not be based on the most impetuously self-centered among us.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Perhaps we could elect Jimmy Carter again?"Not a bad idea at all. It was a really stupid idea to elect Reagan to replace him, and in retrospect, that looks all the more stupid now.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I hereby nominate Jimmy Carter for Vice President with Obama. He could be replaced on the ticket in 2012, if necessary.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Or at least bring the Carter energy policy back!!
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Trading fuel economy for time doesn't involve just the driver's time, but the time of all the soldiers overseas securing a steady supply of mideast oil for us to burn.
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Marlboro_Man2 (Anonymous) says: Spiderman:What kind of car YOU drive?--------------------------A few days ago he was bragging about his old exhaust belching Volvo 240DL and some type of Volkswagen Van thing-a-ma-jigger. But you know cool, he is Mr. Green.
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Hey SNAP - some chick is looking for you over on the Dumpster Diving thread....just tryin' to be helpful. I told her that Marion might know how to find you...
jrlii (anonymous) says…
Not just No!, but H*LL NO!Allow the market to work!High gas prices are allready making people reduce their driving, that is far more effective than making people waste more time on the road getting where they need to go!Foolish laws cause the condemnatory effect of all laws to decline! Remember, organized crime as we know it did not exist 'till the government foolishly outlawed alcohol!If the government just MUST do something about greenhouse gasses, raise the gas tax, not impose even more ridiculously low speed limits!
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Council MembersKen Frahm, KEC Co-ChairRepresents Renewable Energy ResourcesContact Info: 410 N. Grant, Colby, KS 67701 ¢ 785-462-1432 ¢ kfrahm@st-tel.netMark Parkinson, Lieutenant Governor, KEC Co-ChairContact Info: State Capitol, Room 222-S, 300 SW 10 Street, Topeka, KS 66612 ¢ 785-296-2213 ¢ lt.governor@ks.govRichard AndersonRepresents League of Kansas MunicipalitiesContact Info: 1416 Briarwood Lane, McPherson, KS 67460 ¢ 620-245-2531 ¢ ricka@mcpbpu.comLucas P. BellRepresents Residential HousingContact Info: 3644 SW Burlingame Rd., Topeka, KS 66611 ¢ 785-267-3610 ¢ lbell@kansasrealtor.comRoderick L. Bremby, Secretary of Health and EnvironmentContact Info: Curtis State Office Building, 1000 SW Jackson, Topeka, KS 66612 ¢ 785-296-0461 ¢ RBremby@kdhe.state.ks.usRex Buchanan, Designee of the State Geologist Contact Info: Associate Director for Public Outreach, Kansas Geological Survey, 1930 Constant Avenue, KU, Lawrence, KS 66047-3726 ¢ 785-864-2106 ¢ rex@kgs.ku.eduDavid M. DayvaultRepresents Energy Tax and Revenue SpecialistContact Info: Abercrombie Energy LLC, 150 N. Main St., Suite 801, Wichita, KS 67202 ¢ 316-262-1841 ¢ ddayvault@abercrombiegroup.comSarah DeanRepresents Environmental Issues related to Energy ProductionContact Info: 1835 Republic Road, Lawrence, KS 66044 ¢ 785-749-3256 ¢ sdeanks@aol.com
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Joe DickRepresents Municipally Owned or Operated Electric UtilitiesContact Info: Kansas City Board of Public Utilities, 540 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66102 ¢ 913-573-9094 ¢ jdick@bpu.comStephen DillardRepresents Oil ProducersContact Info: Pickrell Drilling Company, Inc., 100 S. Main, Suite 505, Wichita, KS 67202 ¢ 316-262-8427 ¢ sdillard@pickrelldrlg.comJay Emler, SenateSenate President AppointeeContact Info: 1457 Shawnee Rd, Lindsborg, KS 67456 ¢ 785-227-2887 (h) ¢ 785-296-7354 (Capitol) ¢ emler@senate.state.ks.usCarl Holmes, Kansas House of RepresentativesSpeaker of the House AppointeeContact Info: P.O. Box 2288, Liberal, KS 67905 ¢ 620-624-7361 (h) ¢ 785-296-7670 (Capitol) ¢ holmes@house.state.ks.us ¢ repcarl@aol.comSteve JohnsonRepresents Natural Gas UtilitiesContact Info: 7421 W. 129th, Overland Park, KS 66213 ¢ 913-319-8604 ¢ 785-271-3038 ¢ 785-865-6130 (cell) ¢ sjohnson@oneok.comMike KelleyRepresents Trucking Industry RepresentativeContact Info: YRC Worldwide Inc., 10990 Roe Avenue, Overland Park, KS 66211 ¢ mike.kelley@yrcw.comJeff KennedyRepresents Natural Gas ProducersContact Info: 100 N. Broadway, Suite 500, Wichita, KS 67202 ¢ 316-265-9311 ¢ jkennedy@martinpringle.comDavid Kerr, Secretary of CommerceContact Info: Kansas Department of Commerce, 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66612-1354 ¢ 785-296-2741 ¢ dkerr@kansascommerce.comGregory KrissekRepresents Energy and AgricultureContact Info: ICM, Inc., 310 North First Street, Colwich, KS 67030 ¢ 316-977-6549 ¢ gkrissek@icminc.comJanis Lee, Kansas SenateSenate Minority Leader AppointeeContact Info: 2032 90th Road, Kensington, KS 66951-9745 ¢ 785-476-2294 (h) ¢ 785-296-7366 ¢ lee@senate.state.ks.us ¢ jlee@ink.orgStuart S. LowryRepresents Rural Electric CooperativesContact Info: 7332 SW 21st St., P.O. Box 4267, Topeka, KS 66604-0267 ¢ 785-228-4610 ¢ slowry@kec.org
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Galen B. MenardRepresents Petroleum RefinersContact Info: NCRA, 2000 S. Main St., McPherson, KS 67460 ¢ 620-241-2340 ¢ gmenard@ncrarefinery.comDeb Miller, Secretary of TransportationContact Info: KS Department of Transportation, Dwight D. Eisenhower State Office Building, 700 S.W. Harrison Street, Topeka, KS 66603-3754 ¢ (785) 296-3461 (w) ¢ dmiller@ksdot.orgHans H. NettelbladRepresents Commercial and Industrial BuildingsContact Info: 106 W. 14th St., Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64105 ¢ 913-231-8254 (h) ¢ 816-783-1500 (wk) ¢ hnettelblad@bnim.comAdrian J. Polansky, Secretary of AgricultureContact Info: Kansas Department of Agriculture, 109 SW 9th St., 4th Floor, Topeka, KS 66612-1280 ¢ 785-296-3902 ¢ apolansky@kda.state.ks.usWilliam G. RigginsRepresents Generators of Electricity from Renewable EnergyContact Info: 1201 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106 ¢ 785-843-8602 (h) ¢ 816-556-2645 (wk) ¢ bill.riggins@kcpl.comMark SchreiberRepresents Investor-owned Electric UtilitiesContact Info: 1722 Yucca Lane, Emporia, KS 66801 ¢ 785-575-8369 ¢ mark.schreiber@westarenergy.comTom Sloan, Kansas House of RepresentativesSpeaker of the House AppointeeContact Info: 772 Hwy 40, Lawrence, KS 66049 ¢ 785-841-1526 (h) ¢ 785-296-7677 (Capitol) ¢ sloan@house.state.ks.us ¢ glsloan@prodigy.netBruce SneadRepresents Energy Efficiency and ConservationContact Info: 810 Pierre, Manhattan, KS 66502 ¢ 785-532-6026 ¢ bsnead@ksu.eduDavid R. Springe, Consumer Counsel, Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB)Contact Info: 1500 SW Arrowhead Rd., Topeka, KS 66604-4027 ¢ 785-271-3239 ¢ d.springe@curb.kansas.govJosh Svaty, Kansas House of RepresentativesHouse Minority Leader AppointeeContact Info: 1355 Highway 156, Ellsworth, KS 67439 ¢ 785-472-7794 (h) ¢ 785-296-7680 (Capitol) ¢ svaty@house.state.ks.us ¢ joshuasvaty@hotmail.comMark Taddiken, Kansas SenateSenate President AppointeeContact Info: 2614 Hackberry Rd, Clifton, KS 66937 ¢ 785-926-3325 (h) ¢ 785-296-7371 (Capitol) ¢ taddiken@senate.state.ks.us
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Michael J. VolkerEnergy EconomistContact Info: 504 W. 40th St., Hays, KS 67601 ¢ 785-625-1476 ¢ mvolker@mwenergy.comSteve Weatherford, President, Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA)Contact Info: KDFA, 555 South Kansas Ave, Suite 202, Topeka, KS 66603 ¢ 785-357-4445 x 302 ¢ sweatherford@kdfa.orgCurt WrightRepresents Petroleum MarketersContact Info: P.O. Box 93, Wellsville, KS 66092 ¢ 785-883-2072 ¢ cawright@embarqmail.comTom Wright, Kansas Corporation Commission ChairmanContact Info: Kansas Corporation Commission, 1500 Arrowhead Rd., Topeka, KS 66604-4027 ¢ 785-271-3166 ¢ t.wright@kcc.ks.gov ¢ j.potter@kcc.state.ks.us
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Call 'em up and let 'em know what you think. Looks like a Sebelius stacked council to me. Especially with the Green Lt. Gov as co-chair. This will make for interesting legislation next year. Simply moronic!
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
Anonymous usertangential_reasoners_anonymous:"..after the first sonic barrier is breached, fuel efficiency increases."Um, no, but you are not the first person to make this mistake. Below the speed of sound, wind resistance (drag) goes up pretty much with the square of the velocity. Beyond the speed of sound, it goes up mostly linearly with velocity, but it does continue to go up. (Let's ignore hypersonic velocities for now.) And yes, I know that was part of a joke, but I can't resist the urge to prevent the spread of misinformation. It's a flaw of mine.A car that is most efficient at 80 mph? I'm skeptical, but I would like/enjoy seeing it. :-)There are constant costs (in energy) for running a car no matter what speed and there are costs which go up with velocity. If you only look at the constant costs, it seems to be more efficient to drive as fast as possible. If you only look at variable costs, it seems to be more efficient to drive as slowly as you can stand. After laying/adding both graphs over each other, the most mpg really is in the 45 mph range, give or take, depending on vehicle size, weight, and shape. So, let's assume that at 45 mph the two primary cost factors are about 50/50. (I think that it is provable that at the mpg maximum velocity, constant and variable costs equal each other, but even if not, it's close enough.) The amount of time lost to travel is linear with the speed of travel, but the cost of fuel is going up with the square of speed. So, anything above the speed of maximum fuel efficiency is a degrading tradeoff with time efficiency. How badly it degrades depends on the drag coefficient and the 'wage' of the occupants in the car. For a truly optimal solution (ignoring accident severity, etc.), the combined wages of the vehicle occupants should be considered; 2 people at $50K would be equal to one at $100K. Rich people get to drive faster than poor people, and people with bigger cars/engines get to drive faster as well. Or, we could decide that wouldn't be fair and that the 2 minutes 20 seconds that we would add to our time cost in getting from Lawrence to KC at 65 instead of 70 is worth the overall, estimating, 8% reduction in gasoline consumption, as long as we are all playing by the same rules. Or, we could pretend that nothing is changing in the economics of energy and leave things the way they are.BTW, my solution is to telecommute as much as practical.
KUweatherman (Curtis Lange) says…
I still get 34 MPG with my cruise control set at 80 mph. The way my car is, I'd most likely get LESS going 65 mph.
lounger (anonymous) says…
I thought Clinton was a very good prez. It is interesting however that The speed limit was raised from 55 to 70 mph during his time. Clinton was at least man enough to bring up Global warming and have a v.p. who was passionate about solving it-unlike the current Bozo who wont even call it by name. How about Obama becoming even more serious than Bill and Al and meeting this issue head on!
TtownKUlivin (anonymous) says…
The current government needs to listen to T.Boone Pickens, that man is a genius when it comes to natural resources and energy concerns...he stated that making government vehicles use natural gas as a means of energy would decrease the U.S. imports of fuel by 40%. He also said that a Russian company has already started providing natural gas stations all across Europe. And basically ripped congress for always being behind in times compared to Russians when it comes to energy.
KLATTU (anonymous) says…
I've gone back to 55 mph on the highway, and my average mileage has gone up almost 10 mpg. For those of you who think drilling more oil is the answer try to find one case in the last 100 years where giving leases to drill has decreased oil costs significantly. It's never happened. Oil companies will only drill more oil when oil prices are high, and have no interest in seeing oil prices lower. "Hey, record profits again! We don't know how this keeps happening?" Wink wink....
clyde_never_barks (anonymous) says…
klattu (Anonymous) says: I've gone back to 55 mph on the highway, and my average mileage has gone up almost 10 mpg.____________I must have been behind you yesterday...stay in the right lane next time, and activate your emergency flashers so that other drivers know you have decided to "park" on the side of the road. Thanks for almost causing accidents. Better yet, if you like to drive that slow, why don't you take county roads and back ways...
Jeteras (anonymous) says…
Gee ok lets change the law and all the signs in thse state that currently are 70 mph! Do you realize the undertaking that this is? manpower labor costs, fuel for the KING sized dump trucks the state uses for sign vehicles now, not to mention the cost of the signs! Some things are better left alone people! Jesus whoever come up with this idea needs their head examined. I think lawmakers are bored. Use the money that would be wasted on this useless idea to bring more electric cars on the road by making them more affordable. Easy solution,, offer a huge state tax supplement if you buy a hybrid car. Say in the range of $3000 or $4000 within that year. Probably be cheaper than this insane speed limit proposal!
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Really spiderman???Well, here's something that was promised just earlier this month...looks like it didn't happen either.spdierman (Anonymous) says..."i am withdrawing from the forum and have sent an email to LJW...have essentially ruined the purpose and fouled the on line forum to a point where their constant interjections ahve ruind the forum for serious readers."
BABBOY (anonymous) says…
Man, I do not give a crap about the price of gas or the over hype around the oil thing. I would go 130 miles per hour if they would let me. If someone else wants to waste time and money crawling along at 55 miles per hour, then fine. But, do not do it in the passing lane and do not do that stupid speed up thing on the two lane highways when I pass your lame selves.
bd (anonymous) says…
55mph do it now!
Trobs (anonymous) says…
I use to drive 80 on my commute to Overland Park every morning. I now drive 65. I leave 5 mins earlier from home and get to work at the same time. I have also added 6 mpg to my mileage from that alone.
KURocks (anonymous) says…
Riverrat, so your the guys causing the traffic jams on K-10.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Kansas state officials...."We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"
nobodytovotefor08 (anonymous) says…
So, let me get this straight. We lower the speed limit to get better gas mileage so that uses less fuel. But, what about exhaust fumes? If we are on the road longer, doesn't that mean more fumes...so, the faster we go, the less time vehicles are on the road, so shouldn't we be increasing the speed limit to 80 or more to reduce time on the road? That would make a bigger impact than 1 to 2 miles per gallon. Less time on the road! Peace, Vick living in Missouri, missing Kansas
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Here is the latest private email sent to me by spidersvencool....Hello,The user spiderman sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:==============================bite it !dr. thompson is gonna come visit the birdies !at 'the bird'==============================
mercedina (anonymous) says…
kansan's were better off almost 50 YRS ago!!!Remember when the Turnpike speed was 80 max/40 min!Cars and Tires have improved dramaticaly but speed limitsare retarding. WHY? Save Fuel? But people can still buy a HUMMER and get 8 mpg and buy all the fuel they want. If they are forced to save fuel it means they can use more. People with means care little what the price is.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Pollution is the larger problem with driving at execssive speeds.US Senator Broaches the 55 mph Speed Limit12 July 2008US Senator Richard Warner (R-VA) has requested that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study the imposition of the 55 mph speed limit in the US in 1974 to determine whether the administration and Congress should take similar action now.In January 1974, in response to the oil crisis triggered by the OPEC oil embargo imposed in October 1973, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which had passed both the House and the Senate unanimously. The law established inducements for states to reduce speed limits to 55 mph on all major highways. Failure to comply would jeopardize the ability of states to secure highway funds.Prior to this, speed limits were established and enforced by the States and not by the Federal Government.Given the fuel savings of the act, and the resulting decrease in highway fatalities attributable to the lower speed limit, Congress made the national speed limit permanent in December 1974. In 1995, the law was repealed.A National Academy of Sciences study in 1984 estimated that the savings in energy from the "double nickel" were 167,000 barrels of petroleum per day, or less than 2% of the US' highway fuel consumption. This represented an energy saving worth $2 billion annually then.The panel also found that compliance with the law had decreased markedly in the years following the subsiding of the oil crisis (and oil prices), and that this trend might lead to a gradual nullification of the national speed limit and, therefore, to the loss of the safety and energy benefits.Warner is asking the DOE and GAO to answer the following questions:1. Given the significant technological improvements since 1974, at what speed is the typical vehicle traveling on US highways today most fuel efficient? 2. If a national speed limit were enacted similar to the 1974 law, but the speed limit under than law was consistent with the most fuel efficient speed for the typical vehicle on US highways, what would be a reasonable projection for total fuel savings? What would be the savings for the average citizen who owns and operates a vehicle? 3. If a new national speed limit was enacted consistent with the first two questions, how many fewer barrels of petroleum a day would Americans consume? Is it reasonable to believe that there would be a reduction in price at the pump, and if so, what are the ranges? 4. If the federal government took the initiative to reduce its oil consumption, consistent with the concepts of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution (S. Res. 577), how many fewer barrels of petroleum a day would be saved by the federal government?Once again pollution is the larger problem with driving at execssive speeds.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
I have to thank not_dolph for posting all those e-mail addresses. I sent a letter to the group supporting them in their efforts, but suggested that they adopt 100 km/h as the State limit instead of 65 mph. I recieved a favorable response. 45 mph is about where fuel economy tops out. The transmission is in its highest gear and the engine is spinning fast enough to be in a good part of its torque curve, but aero loading is still relatively modest. 45 really is slow, though, and aero loading on a well-designed car is low enough that good fuel economy can be had at somewhat higher speeds. Some vehicles have the aerodynamics of a 3 bedroom split-level house with a semi-detached garage, though, and a curb weight to match. The only way they'll get decent fuel economy is if they get pushed off a cliff. Pollution is a direct result of combustion. The more combustion products that pass through an engine, the more pollutants that come out.
saoirseglen (anonymous) says…
While I can understand driving slower to increase fuel economy, there are certain circumstances where being able to drive faster so you spend less time on the road is better.I just took a road trip vacation to visit in-laws and after driving over 2200 miles round trip I found that being able to drive faster on interstate highways, even if it were slightly above the speed limit, at least allowed us to reach our destination way points in reasonable amounts of time. Even in the mountain areas of the Smokey Mountains and surrounding area being able to drive as fast as was safe and prudent for the conditions kept the vacation doable when we needed to make up time. The key was safe and prudent for the conditions.The best state was Tennessee where cruising at 80 mph was doable across the state without a problem for hours at a time. The worst state was Illinois with its 65 mph limit that they made certain everyone knew was strictly enforced. In the former state it was a pleasure to see the scenery while driving; in the latter I was bored out of my mind because there was little to see of interest and the constant reminders that if you were even a little over the speed limit you were going to be pulled over.I cannot imagine driving across Montana or Wyoming at 55 mph due to the wide open areas with little to keep one awake at the wheel, to engage the mind. Even visiting friends within Kansas almost test my tolerance for the speed limits, especially west of Wichita. Even books on tape and music on the radio can only do so much to keep one awake.I drive under the maximum speed limit on my commute and generally arrive at the first stop light in Lawrence only a little behind those who drove at warp speed to pass me. Short distances at lower speed limits are tolerable. However, driving 55 mph as a daily part of one's job would not be. For truck drivers a 2,000 mile load delivery assignment would take a little over 28.5 hours, ideally, at 70 mph. At 55 mph that turns into over 36 hours of driving.I'm sure we all want safe drivers, but a blanket speed limit that doesn't take into consideration different localized road conditions or travel purposes isn't logical. Imagine driving from Kansas City to Denver at 55 mph on interstate highways, roads that have limited access (few surprise entries into the roadway) and have gradual curves but are mostly straight and smooth. How long would it take before you want to override your cruise control set at 55 mph and you just want to run at 70 to 80 mph just to get there so you don't fall asleep while driving?