2008 Writing D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
September
2008
Editor's Note
Page: 2The point, of course, would be to save gas — or, rather, to force people to save gas, which seems a peculiar position for a GOP senator to take. Don't they believe in market forces and individual liberty? "I drive over 55 mph. . . sometimes 65," Warner said. "But I am willing to give up whatever advantage to me to drive at those speeds with the fervent hope that modest sacrifice on my part will help those people across this land. . . dealing with this financial crisis."
Isn't the whole point of "sacrifice" that it be voluntary? If Sen. Warner wants to conserve energy, he's welcome to buy a Prius, switch to fluorescent light bulbs and turn down the thermostat this winter. Coming into somebody else's house and dialing down that person's heat, though, doesn't count as "sacrifice."
As we're constantly explaining to people who've never been here, New Mexico is a big place. We can bemoan our pioneer ancestors' lack of foresight in planting towns here so far apart, but it's a situation we're stuck with. Forcing people to drive 55 — when they know that, unlike covered-wagon days, they have the ability to go 75 — simply isn't practical.
Let's do a little math. Figure that the trip between Silver City and Las Cruces is roughly split between 65 mph highway and 75 mph interstate, and that you're actually obeying the law. (Use your imagination here, folks.) Mandating 55 mph would add roughly a half-hour to the almost two-hour journey. The all-interstate drive from Las Cruces to Albuquerque would balloon from three hours to four. (By comparison, driving the 107 miles from Richmond, Va., to the nation's capital takes an hour and 48 minutes, according to Google Maps — an average speed of 60 mph. Sen. Warner's "sacrifice" of slowing to 55 would add a whole eight minutes to that trip.)
But isn't it worth a few minutes to save precious fuel? Put aside the point that, as we observed last month, $4 a gallon gas seems to be doing a bang-up job of reducing America's thirst for fuel, with no help from Sen. Warner. (New Mexico driving dropped 5.1 percent in June.) When 55 mph was last enacted nationwide — and, initially, actually enforced — in October 1974, gasoline consumption was reduced by 167,000 barrels of oil a day, according to the Congressional Research Service. That sounds like a lot, but it represents only eight-tenths of one percent of current US oil usage (21 million barrels a day).
Back in 1974, because of the OPEC oil embargo, there was an actual shortage of oil, not just an uncomfortable price for it. Even so, the National Motorists Association estimated that 95 percent of American drivers exceeded the 55 mph limit — especially as the oil shock and enforcement pressures relaxed. Is it really smart public policy to make us a nation of speeding lawbreakers?
Proponents of going back to a national "double-nickel" limit — repealed in 1995 — also argue that slower speeds save lives. As Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore points out, however, traffic fatalities actually fell by 17 percent in the decade after nationwide speeds were increased. From 1995 to 2005, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, traffic injuries also dropped by 33 percent and total crashes declined by 38 percent.
A study Moore conducted for the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute in 1999 adds, well, fuel to this counter-argument. Of the 31 states — mostly places like New Mexico, in the West, and in the South — that raised speed limits to 70 mph or higher after 1995, only two — North and South Dakota — showed even a slight increase in highway deaths. "The evidence is overwhelming," Moore adds, "that traffic safety is based less on how fast the traffic is going than on the variability in speeds that people are driving. The granny who drives 20 mph below the pace of traffic on the freeway is often as much a safety menace as the 20-year-old hot rodder."
Given its dubious benefits, consider the tradeoffs of a national 55-mph limit — which will be borne disproportionately by spacious states like New Mexico. In 1984, the National Research Council calculated that Americans spent an extra 1 billion hours sitting in automobiles because of the 55-mph law. Today, according to the Labor Department, the impact in lost time and productivity would be between $20 billion and $30 billion.
Certainly, the gas-price crunch and America's dependence on foreign oil argue for common-sense steps to reduce consumption. Driving steadily and at no more than the speed limit, grouping your errands and even properly inflating your tires — despite Sen. John McCain's campaign ridicule — can all save money and gas. So can switching to a more fuel-efficient vehicle, though here the emphasis needs to be on getting the worst gas-guzzlers off the road. (Again, do the math: Exchanging a vehicle that gets 16 mpg for one that gets 24 mpg saves more gas than upgrading from 24 mpg to 32 mpg. The former saves almost two gallons for every 100 miles; the latter saves only about a gallon per 100 miles.)
Before requiring New Mexicans and others out here in the big, rectangular states to "sacrifice" with extra hours of driving time, however, Congress should weigh the benefits versus the costs. And Sen. Warner should come drive a mile in our tires, so to speak.