Posted on 02/19/2019 7:36:24 AM PST by rey
Senator John Moorlach (R- Orange County) introduced SB 319 on Friday. If it passes, it would require the Department of Transportation to built two additional traffic lanes on northbound and southbound Interstate 5 and State Route 99. Those new lanes would have no maximum speed limit. The other lanes of traffic would still ban drivers from going more than 65 miles per hour.
According to the bill language, traffic congestion causes the vehicle to idle longer and that leads to more greenhouse gas emissions.
California did pass the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which requires the State Air Resources Board to monitor and regulate the source of greenhouse gas emissions. As for the money used to operate the program, “Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available for appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law continuously appropriates 35% of the annual proceeds of the fund for transit, affordable housing, and sustainable communities programs and 25% of the annual proceeds of the fund for certain components of a specified high-speed rail project.”
The High-Speed Rail is expected to be completed in 2033; however, Governor Gavin Newsom said in last week’s State of the State that the focus would initially be on a street of high-speed rail from Bakersfield to Merced. SB 319 aims to give drivers in California access to high-speed transportation in the absence of high-speed rail.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacramento.cbslocal.com ...
I saw this rep on the news and he said in works in Germany and that it is safer. Germany has recently placed a speed limit on the Autobahn. You are more likely to suffer less risk or injury or death in a slower vehicle than a faster one no matter the safety improvements. He also says that energy efficient vehicles can go that fast and be efficient. Nonsense. Generally speaking, going slower saves fuel. If they were really serious about climate change, and they are not, but they are really serious about socialism, they would lower the speed limit, maybe even ration driving and fuel. If it is Ocasio-Cortez's generation WWII, WWII measures are called for. Ration everything. Of course, any politician that supports that risks losing their job.
Hey...let’s smoke some weed and haul ass!!!
There are far too many cultures intermingling in CA for a highway without a speed limit. Some drivers would want to go 100+ while others would be going 75 and being too clueless to change lanes out of the way of the faster drivers. Road rage incidents and horrific crashes would definitely ensue. Not a matter of if, but when.
And add in rainy weather (which Californians don’t know how to handle) and it multiplies the hazard.
Bad idea.
The primary duty of the cops who patrol the Autobahn is to enforce the rule that slower vehicles must MAKE WAY for faster drivers.
Usually their job involves doing nothing because that habit of turtles staying clear of swifter people is deep and wide.
Some idiots in the USA really do feel “comfortable” sitting in the fast lane, it’s like a rocking chair, or something.
Maybe our grandchildren might get these lanes. I don’t believe the State of CA can do anything anymore in a timely manner.
And, the speed limit is 70.
How f'in stupid!! One lane can do 110 mph, the next lane over can do 65? seperated by two feet and a white line? factor in untrained drivers.. drunk illegals..toyota tercels with the spare in use.. buzzed drivers..
it's an invitation to carnage
The moron virus continues to spread in California.
Perhaps they might consider filling in the gaping potholes first.
“Some drivers would want to go 100+ while others would be going 75 and being too clueless to change lanes out of the way of the faster drivers. Road rage incidents and horrific crashes would definitely ensue.”
So you are saying nothing would change?
You burn more gas in gridlock than at the speed limit. Period. It is not even debatable.
A big black Mercedes shot past me on my left. He was going so fast, the suction from his car made my car jerk noticeably.
He must have been going at least 140, unbelievable. I'm not exaggerating. On he went, out of sight. He just kept it up.
An accident at that speed would be horrifying. Dismemberment, etc.
More jackassery from the leftists misfits CA...
Sure. What could possibly go wrong?
Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn.
Maybe the idea would be safe and OK if they mandate a bicycle/walker lane between them? Just suggestin’...
It only took 6 years to build the Transcontinental Railroad. Most of that was by hand.
I find the responses here quite interesting. Reminds me of the carnage predictions whenever CCW is passed in a new state.
In China the SAFEST multi lane expressways have differing limits by lane. The widest variation I saw ranged from 80 km in the right lane 100 next lane and 120 for the two leftmost.
Germany’s rationale for the limits is carbon reduction not safety.
“.toyota tercels”
Have not seen one of those in a long time.
The speed limit does not cause grid lock.
They’re still going to have the ladies rush right into those lanes and cruise along at around 55 mph.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.