Except for the fact that it would never work and could only happen in a totalitarian police state, it's certainly not the best way to reduce emissions.

I'll take an electric car charged by solar power and go at 70mph over going 30 mph in a gasoline car any day, and I'm sure nature would too.

I say GO!

Hey! if it's going to save my life from being hit by a street racer; if it's going to slow traffic going faster then they can stop; ...

I hope the author and the TH management team realizes that when they post articles like this, they discredit the entire pro-environmental movement by making them look like a bunch of lunatic extremists

That's so Al Gore of Treehugger to claim credit for the idea of reducing the speed limit.

While Scott's comments are a little harsh, he raises an important point.

The number one rule in any form of activism is to ask for something you might get. Ask for something you are sure to get and you aren't asking for enough. Ask for something you are sure not to get, and you are just wasting your time. This post clearly falls into the latter category.

And of course, most vehicles are most fuel efficient between 40 and 55 mph.

If it takes more time for people to get where they're going (aside from the huge loss in productivity and lowered quality of life for everybody), that'll probably mean more congestion.

also, a car going at 30mph isn't twice as efficient as a car going at 60mph. The ratio isn't linear.

this is a fantastic idea! maybe we reduce it to 5mph? or what if we ban cars completely? and then we could ban electricity too, that's dangerous! but wait, the wheel, there's the root cause! maybe we should all live like monkeys, now that's enviornmentally friendly, right! come off it glenn lowcock, solving the ills of our complex society is not so trivial. would you then support trains at 30mph limit? if not, with what logic can you justify one but not the other?

Good luck with that. :p

This is truly a simple idea that would work - think about it...

People would be forced (yes, forced) to drive more slowly making the roads safer. Safer roads would mean more bikes and pedestrians, and lower speeds would mean that roads would require less repair and maintenance, saving some money. Because of the lower speeds, highways would require lower setbacks for safety, increasing the space available for development or public space. To save valuable commuting time, people would live closer to their workplaces, encouraging mixed-use neighbourhoods, and an environment where a car is often not required. With fewer cars used in day-to-day life, fewer parking spaces would be required in commercial developments. A mall would now be able to locate in more dense areas because they would not require the massively expensive parking lots that effect drainage patterns and contribute to the heat island effect. Businesses would see the economic benefit of transporting raw materials and goods by train. In built-up areas, freight movement could switch onto the same LRT and tram lines used for public transit, increasing the revenue that these systems receive and off-setting the operating costs. Health care costs would drop not only because of reduced air pollution, but because people would be more likely to walk, bike or take transit, reducing obesity. And local neighbourhoods would see a renewal as people shed their cars and became more interactive with the world around them. As this became the norm, people would no longer need large over-powered vehicles - electric or fossil-fuel powered. We would see a slow change in the vehicle fleet to smaller, lighter, more efficient vehicles that would last longer because they are being driven less, and at lower speeds.

Sure, driving slower in and of itself won't make a big difference, but all of the associated spinoffs would change the world - for the better.

Greatly expanding the range of 30-35mph speed limits is, I think, I great idea. Neighborhood electric vehicles are legal up to that speed but practically useless as a viable mode of transport due to the limited network of roads to get around without hitting roads that have a 45mph or greater limit. Without interconnected roads at 35 or less you are cut off.

35 is also much more pedestrian friendly.

I think it's a great idea, for all the reasons stated by Glen Lowcock and others posting here.

But I also think it will happen either when hell freezes over, or once governments have been rationing gas for 5+ years. As it stands now, the vast majority of the public would much rather speed limits were *raised* or even abolished. All while they grouse about the cost of gas.

You want to know why this is a dumb shit idea: Cars are most efficent between 45 and 55 mph, so you'd be reducing the fuel effiency. Some people are just thick.

Glenn's got to be out of his mind. The ONLY way that would ever happen would be if the US turned into a totalitarian state and speeding became a death penalty charge. The government would have to force manufacturers into producing engines weren't capable of producing enough power to speed and then confiscate every car currently on the road. In a society of instant gratification that has fallen on the US, there is simply no chance of this ever happening. And from an architectural standpoint, there is simply no way of rebuilding the entire infrastructure across the country to support the limitations that this would impose.
As for practicality, traffic is usually so bad where I live, I never seem to be able to do more than 35 at any time of the day anyway, no matter what hour I leave my house. Not because its me reducing the impact, but because the streets are jammed from 4am until about 11pm every day. The only time people seem to be able to do the speed limit (45) on major roads here any more is when the go faster to blow through the red lights.

This is from The Onion too, right?

A 30mph limit would more than double the number of trucks on the road to support our modern society.Labor costs still greatly outweigh the costs for fuel and insurance in the transportation of goods.

"-Fewer people would commute by car and more would work from home;"
** I work for a hospital, how will I work from home? Should I move closer to where I work? Um, sorry can't afford that, please try again. Maybe I should give up my job and be unemployed and live off the Government.

"-home or ‘near grown’ food and drink would become the cheaper option. While we’d find ourselves eating locally sourced stuff."
** and locations that can't do that will simply have to suffer? Maybe turning cities like Pheonix in to economic ghost towns? This isn't a cheaper option. You've only forced a supply and demand issue that will now male everybody suffer.

"-when we needed a break, we would take the train, really smart ones that go a lot faster than 30."
** Oh yeah. Because the railroads that are already runing at capacty that are suddeny going to need to handle in increase in traffic due to the sudden rise in trucking costs are going to be able to convince the local enviromentalists and residents that they need to build more trackage through their neighborhoods.

"Finally, the shift might bring another welcome change – weakening our fixation with the speed, glamour and status of cars. "
** Well, you'll get your wish. Too many people will be broke and loose their homes long before they can deam of a fast car.

Yep, this has to be an Onion article. No sane person would be willing to simple blast a hole in the economy this way. Very short sighted solution.

-Lego

I don't think it is so much shortsighted as no-sighted. This would require trillions of dollars to redevelop everything. All of this is built on foundation that supposes if one thing happens then the next one automatically follows.

If the speed limit is changed to 30 mph then people will move closer to work and then...and on and on with the upside down pyramid of assumptions.

I am in favor of many of the outcomes suggested, however, this would not be the way to go about it. In order to acheive this business will need to migrate to the suburbs in essence creating new cities our of existing suburbs. Also hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed for the rail expansions alone. This process could take place but would probably take a century of more to complete. When looking at that time frame nothing is predictable so who knows what would happen.

As an American living abroad, I have become much less enamoured of my car. I think this has provoked a storm of protest from people who are narrow-minded and unwilling to look at the nature of the problem. I say, what do you suggest instead? We are heading very fast toward the day when we must choose between cars, heating and agriculture. What is the top priority? The fact that the whole economy in the developed world is based on cheap oil means we have to re-think everything. Loosen up, people! At least handguns don't come into the climate change debate.

I think the maximum practical average speed during rush hour on Interstate 5 between Tacoma and Seattle is already about 30 mph. From watching the morning traffic reports it seems the same is true for I-405 and I-90.
Given the number of SUVs with big V-8 engines crawling along I'm not sure it's saving any gas. We need some serious restructuring and since "we" weren't willing to do it in a deliberate rational way we're going to do it the way we always make changes, in a slap dash destructive expensive scramble where a lot of people suffer and wonder what happened. (put your own rant about dis-functional corporatist politics here).

As a critical care RN I am one of many who can not work at home.

Most of those who disagree with this idea seem to believe that this would be an instantaneous change from 55 or 65 to 30mph. Use some logic people - We have a big problem and we have to find a solution. Simply switching to a different fuel source won't solve the problem. We have to reduce the amount of energy that we use.

What would happen if every 5 years the speed limit was reduced by 5mph. Over the next 25 to 35 years society would adjust to the changes. The necessary alternative links would be built, zoning and building practices would adapt and over 2 generations the population would easily change how it lives and consumes energy.

Sure, we could wait for decades for a magic bullet to save all of our energy problems - but what if that magic bullet never arrives? Should we take that risk? This is a simple idea that would create a number of positive side benefits.

I gotta say I think this is ridiculous. I'd have to quit my job, which I love, because it would take me three hours to get to work and back, and I'd seen my family, who live far away, even less than I do now. This is a stupid plan that proposes a quick fix to a complicated problem.