Study of State Costs and Benefits Associated With Repeal of the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. 96-047-NO1]

Study of State Costs and Benefits Associated With Repeal of the

National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL)

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice invites comments, suggestions and recommendations

from State highway and traffic safety officials, highway safety

organizations, researchers, and others with an interest in the

potential relationship between increases in the speed limit and

increases in motor vehicle fatalities and injuries. Specifically, in

those States that have raised their speed limits beyond that permitted

by the former NMSL, this notice solicits the participation and

cooperation of the respective State highway safety officials in the

preparation of the study of costs and benefits associated with the

repeal of the NMSL, pursuant to Section 347 of the National Highway

System Designation Act of 1995.

DATES: Comments are due no later than August 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number of this

notice and should be submitted to: Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5109,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket

hours are 9:30 am to 4:00 pm EST.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA, Delmas Johnson, National

Center for Statistics and Analysis, Telephone 202/366-5382, Fax 202/

366-7078, Internet address is [email protected]. In FHWA, Suzanne

Stack, Office of Highway Safety, Telephone 202/366-2620, Fax 202/366-

2249, Internet address is [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Speeding (exceeding the posted speed limit

or driving too fast for conditions) is one of the most prevalent

factors contributing to motor vehicle crashes, particularly fatal

crashes. In calendar year 1994, speeding was a factor in 30 percent of

all fatal crashes, and NHTSA estimates that 12,480 lives were lost in

speed-related crashes. NHTSA estimates that an additional 23,000

persons sustained critical injuries, 60,000 sustained moderate

injuries, and 500,000 sustained minor injuries, for a total of an

estimated 583,000 persons injured in speed-related crashes in 1994.

NHTSA estimates the 1994 costs of speed-related crashes to be more than

$23 billion.1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Traffic Safety Facts 1994: Speed, U.S. Department of

Transportation, NHTSA, National Center for Statistics and Analysis,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), enacted during the Arab

oil embargo of 1973 to conserve fuel, was set at 55 miles per hour

(MPH). By March 1974, all States were in compliance with the NMSL. In

addition to conserving fuel, the annual traffic fatality toll declined

from 54,052 in 1973 to 45,196 in 1974, a drop of over 16%. As a result

of the enormous safety benefits in the form of the reduction in traffic

fatalities, the Congress passed Public Law (Pub. L.) 93-643, making the

NMSL permanent. Public Law 93-643 also required every State to certify

that the NMSL was being enforced.

In 1978, the Congress enacted the Surface Transportation Assistance

Act (STAA), Pub. L. 95-599. The STAA required the States to submit data

on the percentage of motor vehicles exceeding 55 MPH on public highways

with a 55 MPH posted speed limit.

Following the enactment of the NMSL, numerous studies of the

benefits and costs of the legislation were conducted. A joint NHTSA/

FHWA task force, charged with determining the safety benefits of the

NMSL, conducted one of these studies. The NHTSA/FHWA task force

concluded that while the ``* * * determination of a precise, accurate

estimate of lives saved by the NMSL * * * is problematic, there were

20,000 to 30,000 lives saved by the NMSL during the period 1974-1978.''

2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Life-Saving Benefits of the 55 MPH NMSL: Report of the

NHTSA/FHWA Task Force, U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS

805-559, October 1980.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The STAA of 1982 required that a study of the ``benefits, both

human and economic'' of the NMSL, with ``particular attention to

savings to the taxpayers * * *'' be conducted by the National Academy

of Sciences' Transportation Research Board (TRB). In 1984, TRB

published its special report, 55: A Decade of Experience.3 The TRB

study, conducted by a 19 member committee composed of experts from a

wide range of disciplines needed to evaluate the costs and benefits of

the NMSL, represents one of the most thorough and extensive

examinations of this important safety issue. Although the TRB committee

recognized the inherent difficulties associated with attempts to

accurately estimate the safety, economic, and energy benefits of the

NMSL, the study concluded that annually 3,000 to 5,000 fewer traffic

fatalities, a savings of $2 billion in fuel costs, a savings of $65

million in taxpayer costs were the result of the NMSL, along with an

increase of 1 billion hours in travel time. The TRB study also

recognized several unresolved issues, including: the impact of

noncompliance; the containment of higher speeds, if permitted, on a

limited subset of roads; and whether the control of the speed limit is

a state or federal responsibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 55: A Decade of Experience, TRB Special Report 204, National

Research Council, Washington DC, 1984.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1987, the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation

Assistance Act granted the states the authority to raise the speed

limit, not to exceed 65 MPH, on portions of the rural Interstate

system. Thirty-eight states raised speed limits on rural Interstates to

65 MPH in 1987, and two additional states adopted the 65 MPH speed

limit on rural Interstates in 1988, bringing approximately 90 percent

of the 34,000 rural Interstate mileage to 65 MPH. Congress asked for an

evaluation of the effects of the 65 MPH speed limit on rural Interstate

traffic fatalities for the

[[Page 31213]]

period 1987 through 1989. NHTSA published the results of this

evaluation in several reports to Congress, the last of which was

published in 1992,4 estimating the 1990 fatality toll on rural

Interstates in the 38 states with 65 MPH limits to be ``30 percent

greater than might have been expected'' or an increase of about 500

fatalities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Effects of the 65 MPH Speed Limit through 1990: A Report to

Congress, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Washington, DC,

May 1992.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Highway System (NHS)

Designation Act

The National Highway System Designation Act (hereinafter referred

to as ``the NHS Act'') of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59) was signed into law on

November 28, 1995. The NHS Act, among other things, established the

National Highway System and eliminated the Federal mandate for the

NMSL. In addition, Section 347 of the NHS Act required the Secretary of

Transportation to study the impact of states' actions to raise speed

limits above 55/65 MPH:

Not later than September 30, 1997, the Secretary, in cooperation

with any State which raises any speed limit in such State to a level

above the level permitted under section 154 of title 23, United

States Code, as such section was in effect on September 15, 1995,

shall prepare and submit to Congress a study of--

(1) The costs to such State of deaths and injuries resulting

from motor vehicle crashes; and

(2) The benefits associated with the repeal of the national

maximum speed limit.

Rep. James L. Oberstar, in remarks on his amendment which led to

the requirement contained in Pub. L. 104-59, elaborated on the issues

that the study (hereinafter referred to as the ``NHS Act study'')

should address--

To provide meaningful, useful information, the report should

include information on the costs before the State changes its safety

laws, and after. It would thus be my intent that the Secretary's

report, due September 30, 1997, include information on the costs of

motor vehicle crashes in the year before changes go into effect; and

again a year later.

The report should include, at a minimum, the costs of acute,

rehabilitative and long-term medical care, sources of reimbursement

and the extent to which these sources of reimbursement and the

extent to which these sources cover actual costs, and the costs to

all levels of government, to employers, and others.

All States are not alike. Each State will want to know its own

data, so that it can determine whether its problems are coming from

alcohol-related or speed-related causes, from not wearing seatbelts

and helmets, or other causes, and perhaps adjust its laws

accordingly.

The report should therefore also include additional factors such

as whether excess speed or alcohol were involved in the accident,

whether seat belts and motorcycle helmets were used by those

involved in the crash, and any other factors the Secretary may wish

to add or State to know.

NHTSA and FHWA (hereinafter referred to as ``the agencies'')

propose a strategy for meeting the legislative requirements, as stated

in Section 347 of the Act, in this notice. The proposed strategy is

intended to address the complexities of determining the costs and

benefits of increased speed limits, while meeting the Congressional

deadline of September 30, 1997. A major aspect of the proposed strategy

is an emphasis on cooperation between the agencies and the States that

have increased their speed limits, as stated in the legislation, for

preparation of the study. It is important that the States participate

in the NHS study process, as determining the impact of increased speed

limits in a particular State will necessitate that an analysis of

state- specific data be conducted. In addition, the proposed strategy

uses an approach similar to that used in the extensive study conducted

by TRB, in order to capitalize on the thorough work done by the TRB

committee to examine costs and benefits resulting from decreasing the

speed limit.

Data Needs

The agencies have identified several major categories of data

needed, as a minimum, to conduct the NHS Act study. These data are

critical to studying, to a reasonable degree, the issues related to

determining the costs and benefits of increasing speed limits. The

following table presents the minimum data requirements for addressing

key components of estimating the safety impact of increasing speed

limits. It will be important to collect the data described in the

following table for a minimum time period of one year before the speed

limit change vs. one year after the speed limit change, if at all

possible.

Minimum Data Requirements for Conducting NHS Act Study

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose Data description Performing organization

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background......................... Effective Dates of Change States.

in Limits, Roadway Types,

New Limit(s), Types of

Vehicles Covered.

Determining the Impact of Increased Fatalities--Fatal Accident States--state impacts.

Speed Limits on Traffic Fatalities. Reporting System (FARS). NHTSA--national impacts.

Determining the Impact of Increased Injury Crashes and Injured States.

Speed Limits on Injuries. Persons--by road, vehicle

types, by speed limit,

alcohol involvement,

helmet use.

Determining the Impact of Increased Crashes of All Severities-- States.

Speed Limits on Crashes. by road, vehicle types, by

speed limit, alcohol

involvement, helmet use.

Estimating Benefits................ Reduced Travel Time-- States.

Commercial & Public

Transportation.

Estimating Costs................... Economic Cost of Crashes-- States--state impacts.

Before Vs. After Speed NHTSA--national impacts.

Limit Changes, Medical

Costs of Crash-Involved

Persons.

Determining Exposure............... Vehicle Miles Traveled and States/FHWA.

Speed Distribution.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agencies request comments from the States and other interested

highway safety officials on the proposed data shown above.

Specifically, the agencies request comments regarding data availability

specific to relevant time periods, data accuracy, suggestions for

additional data not mentioned above, and any problems inherent in

collecting and/or reporting these data.

Proposed NHS Study Outline

The agencies propose the following outline for the NHS study

content. The proposed outline presents a structure for addressing the

entire range of issues identified in Section 347 of the Act. The

[[Page 31214]]

outline is an adaptation of the structure of the TRB special report,

55: A Decade of Experience. While the data described in the table shown

in the previous section, Data Needs, represents the minimum data

requirement for conducting the study, the following outline presents an

approach for a thorough treatment of the entire range of issues

associated with estimating costs and benefits of increased speed

limits. The agencies recognize that data may not be available for all

of these areas, but in the interest of completeness and to closely

follow the TRB report's content, these areas are included. In some

instances, collection of specific data may not be possible. However,

estimates may be available from past relationships and/or research, or

applying some type of multiplicative factors derived from other data

sources.

Draft Outline for NHS Study

I. Introduction

A. Scope of the study/legislative language

B. Legislative history of NMSL and requirements

C. Summary of previous experiences

1. Safety

2. Economic

II. Effects on Travel and Vehicle Speeds

A. The highway system: mileage, travel and safety

B. Amount of travel affected

C. Speed and travel changes across highway systems

D. Adequacy of speed data for addressing issues

III. Impacts of Increased Speed Limits

A. Travel Time (Personal, work, etc.)

B. Required Monitoring & Compliance

C. Fuel Consumption

D. Highway Safety (Fatalities, Injuries, Property Damage, etc.)

IV. Economic Impacts of Increased Speed Limits

A. Value of the Effects on Travel Time

B. Required Monitoring & Compliance Certification Costs

C. Costs Associated with Fuel Consumption

D. Motor Vehicle Crash Costs (Medical Care, Lost Productivity,

Property Damage, etc.

V. Summary and Conclusions

The material outlined above poses a number of challenges to

assessing the impacts of raised speed limits. First and foremost is the

collection of appropriate data to address the safety and economic

impacts. The crash data collection should be straightforward, although

the timing and availability of a sufficient amount of data to meet the

report's current deadline may prove to be one of the biggest

challenges. Another challenge will be in the area of analyzing the data

to provide estimates of effect.

The TRB's report, 55: A Decade of Experience, is essentially a

review of the existing literature on these subjects, supplemented by

what appears to be some new analysis at the national level, based on

existing studies. The report contains hundreds of references of papers

reviewed for consideration in their report. A copy of the TRB report

has been placed in the docket.5 The report describes methods used

to estimate various components such as taxpayer costs and benefits,

energy savings, and travel time. In many cases, external information

was used (such as the Nationwide Personal Transportation Study) to

estimate, on a national level, the amount of travel accounted for by

work-related trips, and their average trip length. In some instances,

changes proportional to the changes in crashes, injuries and fatalities

were assumed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 Interested parties may request a copy by contacting the

TRB, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20418.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated earlier, one of the objectives of the current report is

to study the effect of raised speed limits on, ``* * * the costs of

acute, rehabilitative and long-term medical care, sources of

reimbursement and the extent to which these sources of reimbursement

cover actual costs, and the costs to all levels of government, to

employers, and others.'' This level of detail generally has been

unavailable to the traffic safety community, with the possible

exception of special, small-scale studies. However, NHTSA recently

completed a project, Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Study (CODES), that

consisted of grants to seven states. The CODES study employed methods

whereby statewide data from police crash reports, emergency medical

services, hospital emergency departments, hospital discharge files,

claims and other sources were linked so that those people injured in

motor vehicle crashes could be followed through the health care system.

A copy of the Report to Congress (DOT-HS-808-347, February 1996) and

the CODES Technical Report (DOT-HS-808-338, January 1996) have been

placed in the docket. Based upon the CODES experience, NHTSA continues

to encourage states to link these data as a resource for identifying

and quantifying traffic safety problems within states, and for

evaluating the health-care consequences of various traffic safety

policy decisions. In the absence of such linked databases within the

states, other approaches to estimating the economic effects on the

health-care system will need to be employed.

Lastly, NHTSA's last Report to Congress on the Effects of the 65

mph Speed Limit Through 1990 (DOT-HS-807-840, June 1992) has been

placed in the docket. This report illustrates the type of analysis of

crash data that can be performed for estimating the effect of speed

limit changes. In this report, a time series regression model was used

to estimate the data, using annual data from 1975 through 1986 as the

baseline period, and 1987 through 1990 as the 65 mph period. Fatalities

on rural interstate highways in the 38 states that increased their

speed limits in 1987 were modeled as a function of fatalities on all

other roads in these 38 states, and a dummy (0,1) variable representing

the absence/presence of the 65 mph speed limit. This approach resulted

in a model that fit the data well (i.e., 88 percent of the variation

explained). In general, a longer time frame permits more stable

estimates than simply comparing the year before vs. the year after, and

thus, would be preferable for the current report.

Based on the above outline, the proposed NHS study would attempt to

address a wide range of issues on the benefits and costs of the

increased speed limits, using a compilation of State-specific data and

national estimates. Chapter I--Introduction, would present an overview

of the historical background on establishing speed limits, specifically

the NMSL, and a brief summary of findings from study of the costs and

benefits of the NMSL, similar to the material presented earlier in this

notice in Supplementary Information. Chapter II--Effects on Travel and

Vehicle Speeds, would rely heavily on information received from the

States with increased speed limits, augmented by anecdotal information

on the national impact. Chapter III--Impacts of Increased Speed Limits,

would present a detailed assessment, using data collected and analyzed

by individual States, on the estimated savings in reduced travel time

and monitoring/compliance efforts and the estimated impact in terms of

increases in motor vehicle crashes, fatalities, injuries, traffic

congestion, and fuel consumption. As such, Chapter III encompasses a

critical portion of the proposed study and will necessitate that the

agencies rely upon the individual States for detailed assessments of

the impact of increased speed limits on crashes, particularly injury

and property damage crashes, traffic congestion, reduced air quality,

and increased fuel consumption. It will be extremely important to

receive State information on these key areas for compiling the NHS

study, as the agencies will not have direct access to State specific

data

[[Page 31215]]

on these issues. Chapter IV--Economic Impacts of Increased Speed

Limits--would present an examination of the actual costs saved in

reduction in travel time and the costs incurred as a result of

increases in the crash spectrum, fatalities, injuries, and property

damage, in detail. As a result, Chapter IV extends the analysis of the

data presented in Chapter III by supplementing estimates of increases

in motor vehicle crashes, with the economic cost of various components

of crash costs. The agencies plan to rely heavily on the State analyses

for compiling Chapter IV and intends to augment, as necessary, the

State findings with economic cost estimates and a presentation of

national estimates of economic costs, as well. Most importantly, the

agencies will have to rely exclusively on State specific information

for compiling one particular component of Chapter IV, Section D--Impact

on public revenues. Chapter V--Summary and Conclusions--would present a

summary of the State and National findings from previous chapters,

along with observations regarding difficulties encountered by the

States and the agencies in the analytical process and general

conclusions.

Proposed Schedule

The agencies propose the following schedule for completing the NHS

study in order to meet the deadline established by Section 347 of the

Act.

Proposed Schedule for Conducting NHS Study

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Milestone

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 5, 1996......................... End 45-day comment period w/comments due to NHTSA/FHWA.

September 27, 1996..................... Publish final notice on NHS Act study methodology and summary of

comments received.

October 1996 thru April 1997........... Provide technical support to the States on an ``as requested'' basis

for preparing State-specific studies of the costs/benefits of

increased speed limits.

May 30, 1997........................... States' individual studies on costs/benefits of increased speed limits

are due to NHTSA/FHWA.

June 30, 1997.......................... NHTSA/FHWA complete draft NHS Act study report including consolidation

of individual State studies.

July 1997.............................. Draft NHS study circulated for review within DOT and to participating

States.

August 1997............................ Final NHS study completed and reviewed/approved by DOT.

September 30, 1997..................... NHS study sent to Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues Regarding Data Availability, Proposed NHS Act Study Outline, and

Schedule

The agencies recognize that the proposed NHS study outline, while

comprehensive in addressing the various aspects of determining the

benefits and costs of increased speed limits, may present difficulties,

based on the timing of the schedule, particularly in terms of data

availability. Data availability is a key concern for completing the

proposed study at the Federal and State levels. For example, while

NHTSA maintains data on traffic fatalities and fatal crashes for the

nation in the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), FARS data for

1996 will be available for analysis in June 1997, three months from the

legislative due date for the NHS Act study. Additionally, 1996 data on

vehicle miles traveled, a critical measure of exposure needed for

fatality and injury rate calculations, will be not available to FHWA

until September 1997, at the same time the NHS Act study is due to

Congress. As a result, the agencies solicit comments on these proposed

requirements, and are particularly interested in answers to the

following questions:

1. In the States with increased speed limits, are there data

available in the State to address the specific areas outlined in the

proposed NHS Act study, especially Chapter III--Impacts of Increased

Speed Limits and Chapter IV--Economic Impacts of Increased Speed

Limits? If so, to what extent?

2. Do plans currently exist within the State(s) to study the

impact--safety and economic--of increased speed limits? If yes, does

the State anticipate meeting the proposed schedule for forwarding

results of the study to DOT? If there are no current plans to study the

impact of increased speed limits, does the State intend to participate

in the proposed study effort by contributing information regarding the

changes in the State related to increased speed limits?

3. Is the proposed approach reasonable? Are there issues that

should be studied that are not included in the proposed outline? Are

there issues included in the proposed outline that should be omitted or

revised?

4. Is the proposed schedule reasonable? If not, what can reasonably

be accomplished within the proposed time frame? What is an alternative

schedule that would be more reasonable?

5. Does the proposed schedule provide for a sufficient period of

time to evaluate the effects of increased speed limits? For example,

the study is tasked with comparing one year before vs. one year after

the change in speed limits. States are asked to comment on the timing

of their implemented or planned changes in the State speed limit as it

relates to the NHS Act study objectives.

The agencies invite public comment on the above questions and other

areas of this notice. Interested individuals, highway safety

organizations, State highway officials, and others are encouraged to

submit comments on these and any related issues. It is requested (but

not required) that ten (10) copies of each comment be submitted.

Written comments to the docket must be received on or before August 5,

1996. In order to expedite review of this notice and the submission of

comments, copies of this notice are being sent simultaneously with

issuance to members of the National Association of Governors' Highway

Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) and the American Association of State

Highway Safety and Traffic Officials (AASHTO). Comments should not

exceed fifteen (15) pages in length. Necessary attachments may be

appended to the submissions without regard to the fifteen page limit.

This limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their

primary concerns in a concise manner. All comments received before the

close of business on the comment closing date listed above will be

considered and will be available for examination in the docket room at

the above address both before and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the closing date will be considered.

Those commenters wishing to be notified upon receipt of their comments

by the Docket should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope with

their comments. Upon receipt of the comments, the Docket supervisor

will return the postcard by U.S. Mail.

Issued: June 14, 1996.

[[Page 31216]]

Signed:

Donald C. Bischoff,

Acting Executive Director, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

Anthony R. Kane,

Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-15599 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P