New California bill could eliminate speed limit on I-5, State Route 99

[bing101]

https://abc30.com/traffic/new-bill-could-eliminate-speed-limit-on-i-5-hwy-99/5144614/

Interesting idea but I don't know how thats going to play out in Practice though

[oscar]

The proposal calls for construction of new high-speed lanes on I-5 and CA 99. Good luck with that for CA 99. Even on I-5, you'd almost certainly need tolls, to cover both construction costs and greenhouse-gas offsets.

The bill provides for the offsets, but no mention of tolls or other ways to pay for them. Once that gets added to the bill (assuming it isn't dead on arrival), there'll be something to offend most everybody.

[Max Rockatansky]

It won't happen but some speed limit increases, especially on I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to I-580 would be nice. 

[roadfro]

It won't happen but some speed limit increases, especially on I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to I-580 would be nice.

100% this.

It also wouldn't hurt to have a third lane along much of this stretch...I think that could help more than the proposal and wouldn't cost nearly as much.

[Max Rockatansky]

It won't happen but some speed limit increases, especially on I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to I-580 would be nice.

100% this.

It also wouldn't hurt to have a third lane along much of this stretch...I think that could help more than the proposal and wouldn't cost nearly as much.

California surprisingly has never made the move to 75 or even 80 MPH despite there being stretches of road and expressway that could handle it.  Personally I'd put I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and I-580 at 75 MPH and 70 MPH north to the City Limits of Stockton. Personally I'd rather see the money for third lanes go to 99 as it has more traffic on the whole. 

Off the top of my head the one place I think 80 MPH would be appropriate is much of I-40 east of Daggett.  75 MPH seems appropriate for I-10 climbing east from Coachella and definitely got I-8 in Imperial Valley.  Certain stretches of US 395 could use some 70 MPH zones like 58 and US 101 have. 

What I always found odd about California is that the terminal top speed in the State is pretty low compared neighboring states like Nevada and Arizona (we won't talk about Oregon).   By comparison the low end speed limit is usually very high compared to nearby states.  That whole "if it ain't Signed it's 55"  mentality can get pretty nutty in mountain regions or on surface streets. Arizona in particular loves to post nanny speed limits on rural mountain roads while Nevada usually does it only for places where people live. 

[oscar]

California surprisingly has never made the move to 75 or even 80 MPH despite there being stretches of road and expressway that could handle it.  Personally I'd put I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and I-580 at 75 MPH and 70 MPH north to the City Limits of Stockton. Personally I'd rather see the money for third lanes go to 99 as it has more traffic on the whole.

If you don't add lanes to I-5, slow trucks slowly passing even slower trucks will make any speed limit increase irrelevant. Even if the truck speed limit were raised, you're still going to have slow truck issues.

Besides, it'd be easier to add lanes to I-5, at least once people completely abandon any dreams of putting HSR in the I-5 median.

[nexus73]

Having proposed "autobahning" I-5 from 99 to I-580, I am glad to see a bill like this come up.  Here are the problems I see along I-5.  Fog.  Smoke.  High winds.  There will need to be a lot of message boards placed along I-5 for alerting motorists to the hazards.  A third lane is a necessity due to the huge amount of truck traffic.  I would go with four lanes with the right two lanes being all that trucks are allowed on except in case of an accident or other emergency in order to allow for no speed limits. 

There is no need for tolls.  Just take the money from the high speed rail moneypit and shift it to I-5.  With no speed limit, going from one metroplex to the other will be just as quick as the HSR would have been. 

99 is way too congested for no speed limits.  There are still plenty of 4-lane miles needing to be expanded to 6 lanes.  Once that is done, then a 75 MPH speed limit with limited enforcement will suffice.  Traffic regulates itself as when the volume is high, who can zip along at three digit speeds after all? 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

California surprisingly has never made the move to 75 or even 80 MPH despite there being stretches of road and expressway that could handle it.  Personally I'd put I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and I-580 at 75 MPH and 70 MPH north to the City Limits of Stockton. Personally I'd rather see the money for third lanes go to 99 as it has more traffic on the whole.

If you don't add lanes to I-5, slow trucks slowly passing even slower trucks will make any speed limit increase irrelevant. Even if the truck speed limit were raised, you're still going to have slow truck issues.

Besides, it'd be easier to add lanes to I-5, at least once people completely abandon any dreams of putting HSR in the I-5 median.

Personally I think the 55 MPH truck limit ought to go on roads like I-5 in San Joaquin Valley.  Arizona seems to get by fine with no special limit for trucks.  My observation living there was that it lessened truck bottlenecks due to the speed disparity being far less. 

[Occidental Tourist]

I would go with four lanes with the right two lanes being all that trucks are allowed on except in case of an accident or other emergency in order to allow for no speed limits. 

This is already the law in California on freeways.  We have so little traffic enforcement now, however, that trucks no longer care to follow it except for those few days a month when CHP decides to have a high presence and do some ticketing.  On those days, thanks to CB radio, the trucks all amazingly keep to their lanes.

[The Ghostbuster]

No speed limits on Interstate 5 and State Highway 99? Where do the California politicians think they are? On a German Autobahn?

[sparker]

As far as 6-laning goes; the current momentum has shifted from I-5 back to CA 99 thanks to (a) the steady population increases of the towns along the latter route and (b) the presence of the CA 99 "master plan", which since its 1995 inception has called for an incremental increase of the highway to an overall 6 lanes -- and 8 or more within the major cities (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton).  It's difficult to imagine D6 & D10 -- the Caltrans districts responsible for both facilities -- to countenance a funding shift to providing a continuous additional lane on I-5; they'd get so much negative feedback from the CA 99 cities (which could easily translate into political issues) that it might cause problems for Caltrans and, by extension, the present state administration.  It's likely that support for this measure would come from the entities responsible for the I-5 west side alignment in the first place -- L.A. and S.F. and environs, who would be the principal beneficiaries of such a move.  It's likely that some sort of OTR would eventually find its way into the plans for additional I-5 "speed" lanes -- and that those lanes would require some level of separation from the existing 2 traffic lanes/direction; combined with the likely rebuilding of bridges and some overpasses to accommodate additional lanes in the median; this would be an expensive proposition in any instance.  It's hard to see it actually being developed without a dedicated revenue source. 

[Plutonic Panda]

I believe a way to pay for this proposal has already been identified.

I hope this happens! I really hope this happens. I am very skeptical that it will however and at this point I'd just like to see I-5 6 laned to Sacramento. If there is to be an unlimited speed limit, it'd still need to be controlled. Perhaps California could be instill the highest speed limit being 100MPH. I wonder which state will be the first to do so.

[michravera]

As far as 6-laning goes; the current momentum has shifted from I-5 back to CA 99 thanks to (a) the steady population increases of the towns along the latter route and (b) the presence of the CA 99 "master plan", which since its 1995 inception has called for an incremental increase of the highway to an overall 6 lanes -- and 8 or more within the major cities (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton).  It's difficult to imagine D6 & D10 -- the Caltrans districts responsible for both facilities -- to countenance a funding shift to providing a continuous additional lane on I-5; they'd get so much negative feedback from the CA 99 cities (which could easily translate into political issues) that it might cause problems for Caltrans and, by extension, the present state administration.  It's likely that support for this measure would come from the entities responsible for the I-5 west side alignment in the first place -- L.A. and S.F. and environs, who would be the principal beneficiaries of such a move.  It's likely that some sort of OTR would eventually find its way into the plans for additional I-5 "speed" lanes -- and that those lanes would require some level of separation from the existing 2 traffic lanes/direction; combined with the likely rebuilding of bridges and some overpasses to accommodate additional lanes in the median; this would be an expensive proposition in any instance.  It's hard to see it actually being developed without a dedicated revenue source.

I-5 has a 100 m right of way (at least from I-580 CASR-99). I don't know of a single bridge that would require widening in order to support more lanes. Most of the shoulders are wide enough for TWO trucks. I support the construction of additional lanes on both CASR-99 and I-5 and the deregulation of auto speed limits on them. I will take those in any order.

[TheStranger]

Off the top of my head the one place I think 80 MPH would be appropriate is much of I-40 east of Daggett.  75 MPH seems appropriate for I-10 climbing east from Coachella and definitely got I-8 in Imperial Valley.  Certain stretches of US 395 could use some 70 MPH zones like 58 and US 101 have. 

There are some parts of US 101 in the Salinas River Valley - namely San Ardo - which could easily go higher than the existing 70 MPH limit! 

[Max Rockatansky]

Off the top of my head the one place I think 80 MPH would be appropriate is much of I-40 east of Daggett.  75 MPH seems appropriate for I-10 climbing east from Coachella and definitely got I-8 in Imperial Valley.  Certain stretches of US 395 could use some 70 MPH zones like 58 and US 101 have. 

There are some parts of US 101 in the Salinas River Valley - namely San Ardo - which could easily go higher than the existing 70 MPH limit!

I use 101 north of 198 quite a bit.  I'd say it is much more if a high quality freeway grade until King City with barely any people around.

[doorknob60]

... (we won’t talk about Oregon).   ...  That whole “if it ain’t Signed it’s 55” mentality can get pretty nutty in mountain regions or on surface streets.

Technically, Oregon has the same top speed for cars as California (70). Except the truck maximum in Oregon is 65, but only 55 in California. And the same "55 on basically any rural highway, even in the mountains" thing applies to Oregon too (including 55 being the default if no limit is signed, in rural areas).

Though in practice, California still has better speed limits, since western Oregon (notably I-5) did not get the 70 treatment, and no state or US highway west of the Cascades is above 55. Plus urban limits capping out at 60 (with many at 55 or 50). Speed enforcement also seems heavier in Oregon.

Back to the main article. I don't see that proposal happening. But I think adding a third lane, raising the speed limit to 80 MPH, and raising the truck limit to 70 MPH (or get rid of it) and ban trucks from the far left lane, would be a realistic goal.

[sparker]

I-5 has a 100 m right of way (at least from I-580 CASR-99). I don't know of a single bridge that would require widening in order to support more lanes. Most of the shoulders are wide enough for TWO trucks. I support the construction of additional lanes on both CASR-99 and I-5 and the deregulation of auto speed limits on them. I will take those in any order.

While the bridges currently along I-5 are wide enough to support an additional lane in the median immediately inside the current left lane (per direction) including an adequate shoulder, we're talking about separated lanes here, OTR or not, which would require not only a "buffer zone" between the two existing general-purpose lanes and two additional "autobahn" lanes within the median.  Those two 12' lanes, a 10' buffer zone serving as the outer shoulder for the high-speed lanes, and at least a 4' inner shoulder (for the projected speeds, IMO that shoulder should be as wide as feasible); that's 38 feet per direction -- and a tall K-rail would likely be necessary to address the issue of 100+ mph vehicles potentially crossing the center divider.  Keeping the high-speed traffic separate -- possibly treating it like the toll lanes on I-10 east of L.A., with specified points of egress from the general lanes to the "special" lanes -- would be necessary from a safety POV; perhaps another K-rail between the GP and high-speed lanes might prove necessary as well.  In any case, deploying such a facility wouldn't be as straightforward as a simple widening; it would have to be "custom-designed" for the task at hand to be at once safe and effective.  I don't see a project of that magnitude and expense happening any time soon. 

 

[nexus73]

I-5 has a 100 m right of way (at least from I-580 CASR-99). I don't know of a single bridge that would require widening in order to support more lanes. Most of the shoulders are wide enough for TWO trucks. I support the construction of additional lanes on both CASR-99 and I-5 and the deregulation of auto speed limits on them. I will take those in any order.

While the bridges currently along I-5 are wide enough to support an additional lane in the median immediately inside the current left lane (per direction) including an adequate shoulder, we're talking about separated lanes here, OTR or not, which would require not only a "buffer zone" between the two existing general-purpose lanes and two additional "autobahn" lanes within the median.  Those two 12' lanes, a 10' buffer zone serving as the outer shoulder for the high-speed lanes, and at least a 4' inner shoulder (for the projected speeds, IMO that shoulder should be as wide as feasible); that's 38 feet per direction -- and a tall K-rail would likely be necessary to address the issue of 100+ mph vehicles potentially crossing the center divider.  Keeping the high-speed traffic separate -- possibly treating it like the toll lanes on I-10 east of L.A., with specified points of egress from the general lanes to the "special" lanes -- would be necessary from a safety POV; perhaps another K-rail between the GP and high-speed lanes might prove necessary as well.  In any case, deploying such a facility wouldn't be as straightforward as a simple widening; it would have to be "custom-designed" for the task at hand to be at once safe and effective.  I don't see a project of that magnitude and expense happening any time soon. 

 

In Germany they do no speed limit autobahns that are two lanes in each direction.  Why does it work?  Because German drivers are good drivers and the law is strict about leaving the left lane open for passing.  Over here we have a lot of lousy drivers.  Add to that the amount of truck traffic on I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley.  That is why I recommended 4 lanes in each direction.  Californians are already used to zipping along at 85 MPH on I-5.  The extra two lanes strike me as enough for an unlimited speed situation. 

That said, I do like the idea of having two lanes set aside for the trucks and other slower moving traffic being divided from the high speed two lanes.  It will run up the expense but if this design does bring about a safer high speed route, then okay, count me in.  How would one prove the design does the job?  Build a 10 mile demonstration section in whatever is known to be the most accident-prone section of I-5 along with another 10 mile demonstration section where four lanes in one direction are all together with this section being in the safest part of I-5.  Look at the numbers after a year and then decide what to do after that.

Rick

[michravera]

I-5 has a 100 m right of way (at least from I-580 CASR-99). I don't know of a single bridge that would require widening in order to support more lanes. Most of the shoulders are wide enough for TWO trucks. I support the construction of additional lanes on both CASR-99 and I-5 and the deregulation of auto speed limits on them. I will take those in any order.

While the bridges currently along I-5 are wide enough to support an additional lane in the median immediately inside the current left lane (per direction) including an adequate shoulder, we're talking about separated lanes here, OTR or not, which would require not only a "buffer zone" between the two existing general-purpose lanes and two additional "autobahn" lanes within the median.  Those two 12' lanes, a 10' buffer zone serving as the outer shoulder for the high-speed lanes, and at least a 4' inner shoulder (for the projected speeds, IMO that shoulder should be as wide as feasible); that's 38 feet per direction -- and a tall K-rail would likely be necessary to address the issue of 100+ mph vehicles potentially crossing the center divider.  Keeping the high-speed traffic separate -- possibly treating it like the toll lanes on I-10 east of L.A., with specified points of egress from the general lanes to the "special" lanes -- would be necessary from a safety POV; perhaps another K-rail between the GP and high-speed lanes might prove necessary as well.  In any case, deploying such a facility wouldn't be as straightforward as a simple widening; it would have to be "custom-designed" for the task at hand to be at once safe and effective.  I don't see a project of that magnitude and expense happening any time soon. 

 

In Germany they do no speed limit autobahns that are two lanes in each direction.  Why does it work?  Because German drivers are good drivers and the law is strict about leaving the left lane open for passing.  Over here we have a lot of lousy drivers.  Add to that the amount of truck traffic on I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley.  That is why I recommended 4 lanes in each direction.  Californians are already used to zipping along at 85 MPH on I-5.  The extra two lanes strike me as enough for an unlimited speed situation. 

That said, I do like the idea of having two lanes set aside for the trucks and other slower moving traffic being divided from the high speed two lanes.  It will run up the expense but if this design does bring about a safer high speed route, then okay, count me in.  How would one prove the design does the job?  Build a 10 mile demonstration section in whatever is known to be the most accident-prone section of I-5 along with another 10 mile demonstration section where four lanes in one direction are all together with this section being in the safest part of I-5.  Look at the numbers after a year and then decide what to do after that.

Rick

I-5 between CASR-99 and I-580 currently has so few accidents in good weather that any demonstration would likely yield false or misleading results.

[nexus73]

We still need to find out if leaving all four lanes in a group or breaking them up into a 2 & 2 is better, so doing a demonstration project will reveal something most likely.

Rick

[Occidental Tourist]

As far as 6-laning goes; the current momentum has shifted from I-5 back to CA 99 thanks to (a) the steady population increases of the towns along the latter route and (b) the presence of the CA 99 "master plan", which since its 1995 inception has called for an incremental increase of the highway to an overall 6 lanes -- and 8 or more within the major cities (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton).  It's difficult to imagine D6 & D10 -- the Caltrans districts responsible for both facilities -- to countenance a funding shift to providing a continuous additional lane on I-5; they'd get so much negative feedback from the CA 99 cities (which could easily translate into political issues) that it might cause problems for Caltrans and, by extension, the present state administration.  It's likely that support for this measure would come from the entities responsible for the I-5 west side alignment in the first place -- L.A. and S.F. and environs, who would be the principal beneficiaries of such a move.  It's likely that some sort of OTR would eventually find its way into the plans for additional I-5 "speed" lanes -- and that those lanes would require some level of separation from the existing 2 traffic lanes/direction; combined with the likely rebuilding of bridges and some overpasses to accommodate additional lanes in the median; this would be an expensive proposition in any instance.  It's hard to see it actually being developed without a dedicated revenue source.

I-5 has a 100 m right of way (at least from I-580 CASR-99). I don't know of a single bridge that would require widening in order to support more lanes. Most of the shoulders are wide enough for TWO trucks. I support the construction of additional lanes on both CASR-99 and I-5 and the deregulation of auto speed limits on them. I will take those in any order.

The biggest cost issue is grading and soil stability because most of the West Side Freeway was built on former marsh land.

[sparker]

As far as 6-laning goes; the current momentum has shifted from I-5 back to CA 99 thanks to (a) the steady population increases of the towns along the latter route and (b) the presence of the CA 99 "master plan", which since its 1995 inception has called for an incremental increase of the highway to an overall 6 lanes -- and 8 or more within the major cities (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton).  It's difficult to imagine D6 & D10 -- the Caltrans districts responsible for both facilities -- to countenance a funding shift to providing a continuous additional lane on I-5; they'd get so much negative feedback from the CA 99 cities (which could easily translate into political issues) that it might cause problems for Caltrans and, by extension, the present state administration.  It's likely that support for this measure would come from the entities responsible for the I-5 west side alignment in the first place -- L.A. and S.F. and environs, who would be the principal beneficiaries of such a move.  It's likely that some sort of OTR would eventually find its way into the plans for additional I-5 "speed" lanes -- and that those lanes would require some level of separation from the existing 2 traffic lanes/direction; combined with the likely rebuilding of bridges and some overpasses to accommodate additional lanes in the median; this would be an expensive proposition in any instance.  It's hard to see it actually being developed without a dedicated revenue source.

I-5 has a 100 m right of way (at least from I-580 CASR-99). I don't know of a single bridge that would require widening in order to support more lanes. Most of the shoulders are wide enough for TWO trucks. I support the construction of additional lanes on both CASR-99 and I-5 and the deregulation of auto speed limits on them. I will take those in any order.

The biggest cost issue is grading and soil stability because most of the West Side Freeway was built on former marsh land.

Only the southern part from CA 99 north to the Kettleman Hills; the remainder, except for a short stretch on the valley floor east of Coalinga, lies on the east slope alluvial of the Coast (Diablo) Range -- hence the multitude of bridges over runoff channels coming down from the hills to the west.  Now -- once I-5 splits from I-580, it dips back into the valley largely through the marshlands near the San Joaquin Delta, but I-580 continues the foothill trajectory all the way to Altamont Pass. 

[pderocco]

I can't imagine our current legislature abolishing speed limits on I-5 or CA-99, or even adding lanes to I-5. Unless they're bicycle lanes...

[Verlanka]

I can't imagine our current legislature abolishing speed limits on I-5 or CA-99, or even adding lanes to I-5. Unless they're bicycle lanes...

Who would want bike lanes on an interstate anyway?

[Roadgeekteen]

No speed limit on CA 99? That's excessive. I-5 I could see working.