IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v35y1997i3p614-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource Allocation in Public Policy: The Effects of the 65-MPH Speed Limit

Author

Listed:
  • Lave, Charles
  • Elias, Patrick

Abstract

In 1987, the U.S. government allowed states to raise speed limits to sixty-five miles per hour on some highways. The authors evaluate the consequences using a resource allocation perspective: the chance to drive faster reallocates traffic from side roads to the safer interstate highways, and a higher speed limit permits highway patrols to shift manpower from speed enforcement to other safety activities. This perspective implied that they should measure the effect of a speed limit by its systemwide rather than its local effects. The authors do so and find that the fatality rate dropped by 3.4-5.1 percent following the speed limit increase. Copyright 1997 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Lave, Charles & Elias, Patrick, 1997. "Resource Allocation in Public Policy: The Effects of the 65-MPH Speed Limit," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(3), pages 614-620, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:35:y:1997:i:3:p:614-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David C. Grabowski & Michael A. Morrisey, 2004. "Gasoline prices and motor vehicle fatalities," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 575-593.
    2. Orley Ashenfelter & Michael Greenstone, 2004. "Using Mandated Speed Limits to Measure the Value of a Statistical Life," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 226-267, February.
    3. Steven D. Levitt, 2008. "Evidence that Seat Belts Are as Effective as Child Safety Seats in Preventing Death for Children Aged Two and Up," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(1), pages 158-163, February.
    4. Ziyi Zhou & Min Yang & Fei Sun & Zheyuan Wang & Boqing Wang, 2021. "A Continuous Transportation Network Design Problem with the Consideration of Road Congestion Charging," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Dee, Thomas S. & Sela, Rebecca J., 2003. "The fatality effects of highway speed limits by gender and age," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 401-408, June.
    6. Olof Johansson-Stenman & Peter Martinsson, 2005. "Anyone for higher speed limits? – Self-interested and adaptive political preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 319-331, March.
    7. Steven D. Levitt & Jack Porter, 2001. "Sample Selection In The Estimation Of Air Bag And Seat Belt Effectiveness," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 603-615, November.
    8. Rehim Kılıç & Patrick McCarthy, 2012. "Long-run equilibrium and short-run dynamics between risk exposure and highway safety," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 899-913, June.
    9. J. Brian O'Roark & William C. Wood, 2004. "Safety at the Racetrack: Results of Restrictor Plates in Superspeedway Competition," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(1), pages 118-129, July.
    10. Wang, Xiaolei & Ye, Hongbo & Yang, Hai, 2015. "Decentralizing Pareto-efficient network flow/speed patterns with hybrid schemes of speed limit and road pricing," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-64.
    11. Yang, Hai & Wang, Xiaolei & Yin, Yafeng, 2012. "The impact of speed limits on traffic equilibrium and system performance in networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1295-1307.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:35:y:1997:i:3:p:614-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.