Speed Limits: How Should They Be Determined?

The primary purpose of our highway system is mobility, not safety. If it were the latter, we would set speed limits much lower. A 20 mph speed limit, with governors (speed limiting devices) on all motor vehicles to prevent exceeding that speed, would certainly lower highway casualties. Of course, no one would consider such a measure. Clearly, we tacitly agree to accept a certain level of carnage in order to use the highways in ways we value. At the present time in the US, this tacit agreement says that it is acceptable to sacrifice between 40,000 and 42,000 lives annually. The primary purpose of our highway system is mobility, not safety. If it were the latter, we would set speed limits much lower. A 20 mph speed limit, with governors (speed limiting devices) on all motor vehicles to prevent exceeding that speed, would certainly lower highway casualties. Of course, no one would consider such a measure. Clearly, we tacitly agree to accept a certain level of carnage in order to use the highways in ways we value. At the present time in the US, this tacit agreement says that it is acceptable to sacrifice between 40,000 and 42,000 lives annually. By 1980, excessive regulation of railroads and competition from other modes of transportation, such as trucks and barges, had nearly killed the rail industry. The federal government tightly regulated the rates railroads could charge shippers and the railroads' ability to shed unprofitable lines. The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 ("Staggers Act") eliminated a regulatory scheme in which a government agency set rail rates that uniformly applied to shippers in favor of rates set through negotiations between a railroad and a shipper. The legislation was enacted to unleash the industry from this regulatory regime. Since 1980, the financial health of the rail industry has improved, but most railroads remain revenue inadequate—they do not earn enough revenue to maintain their current infrastructure. Even though rail traffic has grown, the rates railroads charge shippers have generally declined over the last two decades. Railroads, therefore, cannot afford to expand their infrastructure to keep pace with traffic growth because building and maintaining a rail network is very expensive. In the future, railroads will have to raise their rates, which may drive less profitable traffic to the nation's highways and waterways, or invest in infrastructure so they can handle more traffic. Government policy can help the railroads while simultaneously avoiding additional congestion on our highways and waterways, and reducing pollution, fuel consumption, and damage to the highways. The United States' railroad policy could give railroads more resources to expand their infrastructure and assure that railroads have the proper economic incentives to make the investment in infrastructure necessary to meet the demand for their services. That policy must also encourage creative financing and public-private partnerships to the same end. Finally, policies to promote investment in rail infrastructure must not result in a quid pro quo of increased regulation of the industry. Such regulation would likely negate the benefits of encouraging infrastructure investment by driving away private investment, and the industry would need more public money to survive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]