Slower speeds limits needed in Tulsa?

[mrhaskellok]

Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?

Does that really work?  Wouldn't it cause more congestion, and higher emissions?  I've found that I get better fuel economy the faster I go (up to a point).  Isn't sprawl partially caused by an effort to escape congestion?

I may be totally wrong, but common sense tells me that if we drop the speed on riverside to say 30 mph, and it takes everyone an extra few minutes to get to work, we would have an extra few minutes of automobiles on the road achieving their absolute worst gas mileage.  Consequently if we raised the limit and eliminated some stop lights, we could increase fuel efficiency to nearly highway statistics.

Also people would need to figure the few extra minutes too and from work, so they would have to get up earlier and therefore fire up the lights and coffee maker earlier in the day.  Extending the use of energy.  

I like the idea of just eliminating one work day.  4 day week! []  Lets do that instead!  We could make every Monday "Earth Day."  Sit around and drink environmentally conscious drinks like wheat grass and vodka!

[EricP]

Uhh yeah, when pollution is at its worst at low speeds in traffic jams in rush hour you are not going to affect that much with a speed limit, and lowering the limit at times before and after rush hour only mean that rush hour is going to come faster and cause more severe jams because of the lower speed limit. Super.

If they lowered the speed limit on 169 from 65 to 55 I would just be ticketed for going 20 over instead of 10 over. That is, of course, if the city survived the riots that would ensue.

[mrhaskellok]

I posted the question incorrectly.  I don't know the answer.  Many web sites claim that there are many benifits to lower speeds.  Wanted to see what everyone's thoughts were.

It looks like the while you are right, more cars on would be on the road longer, the consumption difference is where the emission benefit is realized.  A car seemingly burns far less fuel when cars are driving slower.

Here are some links that I was looking at...

Northwest Herald Article
Slower Speeds Initiative
Drive 55 Save Gas, get flipped off
Edmond's Test drive
ETSC
Autobahn now has speed limit

[deinstein]

Absolutely not.

In fact, there should be no speed limits, only speed recommendations besides in areas like school zones and busy pedestrian areas.

From that point, the officer can only pull you over if he deems you're driving reckless.

The best government, is the that governs the least.

[mrhaskellok]

quote:  Absolutely not. In fact, there should be no speed limits, only speed recommendations besides in areas like school zones and busy pedestrian areas.

From that point, the officer can only pull you over if he deems you're driving reckless.

The best government, is the that governs the least.

I would be happy to discuss the position of what you are saying...but please understand, no mysterious group of people forced a gun to the head of our legislators and forced them to make a speed limit law.  They are the result of public outcry and influence.  

Now, I know your position well.  Most would call me libertarian. (because I prefer citizen solutions over government solutions)  I differ from most conservatives on this issue because I see the air I breath as a right of mine to be clean and not polluted with your nasty smoke.  If we can't agree here, then I am afraid we wont be able to more forward with our discussion .  Unless of course you are willing to let me sue you for smoking up my air.  []  

I don't think you would believe it right of me to release toxic chemicals in my yard into the air if I lived next door.  I would argue on your side, you shouldn't have to breath it!  It has nothing to do with governing least or more.  You and I probably agree in other respects like economy and health insurance.  But I have a few rights I believe.  You should not be legally able to kill me with your smoke whether you be five feet away or collectively over an entire city.

I find it ironic that you are willing to concede that school zones pose a peculiar threat.   Why?  Are children given any special rights under the Constitution?  Or are you just making that statement because it will give it more political weight?  Would like to know.  "Recommendation" or not, you are already admitting that there needs to be some "extra" attention given to the way we interact and how we do in certain areas.

Case and point,  as long as any municipality falls under the US Constitution, they may, by the proper and legal election of representatives, govern themselves as they see fit.  So long as those laws are not deemed a violation of my constitutional rights.  Don't see anywhere you must be aloud to drive 80 down Memorial.  
Since we have speed limits already, what is wrong with wanting to ensure they are serving us as best as possible?

So define "government" and then lets talk.

[YoungTulsan]

Gas mileage peaks right around 60-65mph I believe.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Gas mileage peaks right around 60-65mph I believe.

That is based on old four barrel carbureted engines that ran on two barrels unless the car was under hard acceleration or reached the speed of about 60. Todays cars are fuel injected with variable timing and lots of tricks to get both power and mileage. The only reason you get better mileage at high speed now is because of automatic overdrive and the fact that a combustion engine is most efficient when kept at a constant speed. It is least efficient when accelerating or deaccelerating. The opposite of electric motors.

So if you want to reduce consumption work on eliminating stop/start situations like 71st from Riverside to 169. Driving 55 won't do much.

[cannon_fodder]

Most/many charts I have seen show gas mileage peaking around 40-50 mph running,of course, at a constant speed and relatively constant RPM (slow down slight up hills, allow yourself to go faster down).  Above that and wind really starts to pick up it's resistance.  Below that and the aerodynamics and power of most cars are under utilized.

Per congestion, slower speed limits would only HELP if they timed the lights accordingly.  Else I would think it is a hindrance as traffic seems to flow well at 40 mph on major streets.

[mrhaskellok]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Most/many charts I have seen show gas mileage peaking around 40-50 mph running,of course, at a constant speed and relatively constant RPM (slow down slight up hills, allow yourself to go faster down).  Above that and wind really starts to pick up it's resistance.  Below that and the aerodynamics and power of most cars are under utilized.

Per congestion, slower speed limits would only HELP if they timed the lights accordingly.  Else I would think it is a hindrance as traffic seems to flow well at 40 mph on major streets.

Yeah, but helping is all it may take to stay off the filthy city list.  I have been driving 55 on the hwy and I have to say, it isn't bad.  I also noticed that vehicles passing me were right in front of me most of the time.  I travel from Bixby to Owasso quite frequently and I am continually surprised at how little of a difference it makes in the time it takes simply driving 55.

According to this site, you can save 20-50% in fuel economy by simply staying below 55mph.  

Drive 55

A panel in Washington state said that if they would lower the maximum speed to 55 in Washington they would cut emissions by 10%.

RM, do you know what the numbers are for Tulsa in the summer?  How much of an impact would 10% reduction in vehicle emissions have?  I don't mind driving slower for cleaner air and cheaper fuel.  Anyone else?

[mrhaskellok]

[RecycleMichael]

A ten percent reduction in emissions from vehicles would be huge. About half of our air quality issues come from vehicle emissions.

Slowing down a few miles per hour clearly helps, but we should also avoid unnecessary idling. On ozone days , avoid the drive-through lunch or even better, bring your lunch and stay in.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

With lower speed limits at one end with a residential speed limit of 20mph have shown to reduce annual accident frequency fell by 60%, the overall reduction in child accidents was 67%, and there was an overall reduction in accidents to cyclists of 29%. It does however lead to an increase in CO2 emissions of 10%. In this case, it might only be suitable for residential areas with high non motorised accident rates. City wide the changing of signals to encourage a constant and smooth speed maybe the one idea to reduce carbon.
At the other end of the scale vehicle efficiency tends to fall quickly after 70mph so stopping speed freaks on the highways could have an important impact.
In my opinion the easiest way to reduce carbon and improve the emissions is to reduce the size of cars people drive and support public transport.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

That's a bad example.  The Volkswagen TDI is a Turbo Diesel engine.  Diesels have lower RPM and this particular transmission is designed for city driving, achieving it's best mileage at a low speed.

I have a TrailBlazer and my manual shows my best mileage peaking at 58 mph.  Since most of us drive gasoline engines I would expect the peak to be around 55-60.

[Gaspar]

Just as I suspected, the average high-end fuel economy speed for modern gasoline powered vehicles is around 60 mph (according to the Consumer Energy Commission and the California Energy Commission and Stanford University and Edmonds and The Department of Energy).