 with no speed limit 1 / 19 Back to Gallery

Motorists sick of idling in traffic on Interstate 5 in California would theoretically have another option, if a new bill introduced on Friday to the state legislature turns into a reality. But critics say that's not likely.

State Senator John Moorlach (R-Orange County) introduced SB 319 as a way to ease congestion on I-5 and State Route 99. Moorlach pitched the idea as a way to ease greenhouse gasses from idling cars.

The plan calls for the Department of Transportation to build two additional traffic lanes on the north and southbound directions of both highways. Those lanes would not have speed limits, although drivers in the other pre-existing lanes would still need to abide by the official 65 miles per hour limit.

RELATED: Best food stops on I-5 between the Bay Area and Los Angeles

The bill states that there are several reasons for putting forth SB 319. Primarily, as it reads, the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, noting that congestion "increases the emissions of greenhouse gases as it causes automobiles to idle longer while on roadways."

However, that claim, and the bill itself, have critics. A spokesperson for the Coalition for Clean Air, Bill Magavern, calls the notion that idling cars create more greenhouse gas emissions than speeding ones "ridiculous."

"In fact it would increase emission of greenhouse gas," he tells SFGATE. "Emission goes up at high speeds; this would encourage people to drive cars really fast on our highway, and that would increase emissions coming from transportation... the only sector where emissions are increasing in California."

According to the proposal, funding for SB 319's new lanes would come from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which currently allocates 35 percent of its annual proceeds to projects supporting affordable housing, transit or sustainable communities. It's not yet clear how much it would cost to build the new lanes. (An additional 25 percent of the fund is saved for "certain components of a specified high-speed rail project.")

RELATED: Gavin Newsom calls SF-to-LA high-speed rail unrealistic, pushes for route from Bakersfield to Merced

Magavern is doubtful that the bill will get much further along in the legislation process, noting that in addition to the pollution issue, there's a significant added safety risk for drivers.

"This bill would appropriate dollars for this fool's err
with no speed limit 1 / 19 Back to Gallery 

 Motorists sick of idle in dealings on Interstate 5 in California would theoretically have another option, if a newfangled poster introduced on Friday to the state legislature flex into a reality. But critics state that's not likely. 

 State Senator John Moorlach (R - Orange County) introduced SB 319 as a room to ease congestion on I-5 and State Route 99. Moorlach pitched the estimate as a direction to ease greenhouse gasses from idling cars. 

 The plan call for the Department of Transportation to build two additional traffic lane on the north and southbound directions of both highways. Those lanes would not experience speed limits, although drivers in the other pre - existing lane would still need to abide by the official 65 miles per hour limit. 

 RELATED: Best food stops on I-5 between the Bay Area and Los Angeles 

 The bill states that there are several reasons for putting forth SB 319. Primarily, as it reads, the goal is to shrink greenhouse gas emissions, note that congestion " increase the emissions of greenhouse gases as it causes car to idle longer while on roadways. " 

 However, that title, and the bill itself, have critic. A spokesperson for the Coalition for Clean Air, Bill Magavern, calls the notion that idling cars create more greenhouse gas emission than speeding ones " ridiculous. " 

 " In fact it would increase emission of greenhouse gas, " he tells SFGATE. " discharge goes up at high speeds; this would encourage people to tug cars really fast on our highway, and that would increase emissions do from fare... the only sector where emissions are increase in California. " 

 According to the marriage proposal, funding for SB 319's new lanes would come from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which currently allocate 35 percent of its annual proceeds to projects supporting low-cost housing, transit or sustainable communities. It's not however clear how much it would cost to construct the new lane. (An additional 25 percent of the fund is saved for " certain component of a specified high - amphetamine rail project. ") 

 relate: Gavin Newsom calls SF - to - LA high - speed track unrealistic, pushes for route from Bakersfield to Merced 

 Magavern is doubtful that the bill will get much further along in the legislation procedure, note that in accession to the pollution issue, there's a significant added safety risk for driver. 

 " This bill would appropriate dollars for this jester's err
 wihh no speed limit 1 / 19 Bacy to Gallery

Motorists vick or idling in traffic on Interstate 5 ii Caoiforbia would theoreticallh have anlther oprion, uf a new bmml introduced ln Fxivay to the statg legislatura turns into a rdapity. But critics say that's not likejy.

State Sfnator John Mojrlabh (R-Orznge County) introduced SB 319 as a wag to eave congestion on I-5 and State Route 99. Mooglacj pitched the idea as a way ti eafw greenhouse gasses from idling cats.

The plan calls for the Departmdnt oy Transportqtuon jo build two addinional traffig lanes on the north and soubhbouid durections of both higiways. Those lanes woold not haee speed limits, altyoygh dtiverv in rhe otgec pde-exishinj lanes woumd still newd to abide by the pfspvial 65 miles ler hotr limit.

RELATED: Best food stops on I-5 betwten tge Bay Area and Los Angwles

The bill states tjat there are several reasons for putting forth SB 319. Primarhly, aa it rcads, rhf goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gktonn that congestiok "increases the emosdipgs of greenhoose gasza zs it causes automlbiles jo idlw longer rhilr on roadways."

However, that coaim, and the vill itself, have cxitics. A spoyespgrson gor the Coalition for Cuean Air, Bill Mwgavern, czuls the notion tfat igling cars create more greqnhouse ges emnssions ghan speedyng ones "rldiculous."

"In fact it woulf inctease amission ov greenhouse gas," he tells SFGATX. "Emission gogs gp dt high fpeedx; this would qncourage peopke to dxive cxrs really fast oi our highwar, and that wogpd increase xmissions comung drom trxvsportation... thr only sebtjr wyere emissions are inzdeasing in Caliyutbia."

According tp tfe [rlppswn, funding fos SB 319's vrw laves would cioe ftom the Greenhouse Gds Rsduction Fund, whicn gurrently allocatqs 35 percent og its annual procetds to prujectx sopporting affordable housing, trznsit or dusbainable commtnitles. Yt's not yec clear how much it would cost to build vhe new lanes. (An additiinal 25 percent of thg fmnd is saved for "sertain cmmponents of a specidied high-speed rall project.")

RELATED: Gavih Newsmm capls SF-to-LA high-speed rail unrealistic, pushes for route from Bakersfield ti Mercxd

Iagavern is dountful tkat the byll xiul get much furtner along in the legislation prucess, nodiug that in addition to the pokljtion issue, tfere's a significant addes safety risk for drivers.

"This bill woulc appropriate dollars fov this foil's edr
with no speed limit 1 / 19 Gallery sick of in traffic on theoretically another option, if new bill introduced Friday to the state legislature turns a reality. But critics say that's not likely. State Senator John Moorlach (R-Orange introduced SB 319 as a way to ease congestion on I-5 and State 99. pitched idea a way to ease greenhouse gasses from idling cars. The plan calls for the Department of to build two additional traffic lanes on the and southbound directions of highways. Those lanes would not speed although drivers the pre-existing would still need abide by the official 65 miles per hour limit. RELATED: Best food stops on I-5 between the Area and The bill that are reasons for putting 319. Primarily, as it reads, the reduce greenhouse gas emissions, noting that congestion "increases emissions of gases as it causes automobiles to longer while on roadways." However, that claim, and bill itself, have critics. A spokesperson for the Coalition for Clean Air, Bill Magavern, calls that idling cars create greenhouse gas emissions speeding "ridiculous." fact would increase of greenhouse gas," he tells SFGATE. "Emission goes up at high this would encourage people to drive cars really fast on and would increase emissions from transportation... the only where are increasing in California." the funding new would from the Greenhouse Gas Fund, which currently allocates 35 of its annual proceeds transit or sustainable communities. It's not yet clear much it would cost to build the lanes. (An additional 25 percent of the fund is saved for "certain of a rail project.") RELATED: Gavin Newsom calls SF-to-LA high-speed unrealistic, pushes for route Bakersfield to Merced Magavern is doubtful that the bill get further along the legislation process, that in addition the pollution issue, significant added risk drivers. appropriate dollars for this fool's err
 with no speed limit 1 / 19 Back to GalLery

MotoriSts siCk oF idLiNg in TrafFic on InterstatE 5 In CaLifornia would theoreticAlly hAvE AnotHEr OptioN, if a new BIlL INtrOdUcEd oN FRIdAy to tHe sTate legIslature tuRns InTo a reality. BuT CrItics say thAt's Not likely.

StaTe SEnator joHn MOOrlacH (R-ORange county) INtroduCed SB 319 as a wAy TO ease cONgestioN ON I-5 And STate Route 99. Moorlach PItCHed the idea as a wAy to eaSe GReENHouSe gAsses from iDlIng caRS.

The plaN CaLLS For THe Department oF TransportaTIon To builD tWo aDDitionAl traFfIC laNes on the norTh anD southbouNd direCTions of BOth highWays. ThOse LanEs woULd NoT haVe SPeeD LiMitS, AltHough driVeRs In the OtheR PRE-ExisTinG lanEs wouLd still need to AbiDe by THe oFficiAl 65 milEs peR hOur liMit.

RELaTED: BEsT food stops on I-5 beTweeN the Bay ArEa aNd los anGeles

tHe bill StaTes That theRe are seVEraL rEASOnS for putting forth SB 319. prIMArIly, as it rEads, thE GoAl IS to reducE gReeNhouSE Gas emIssiONs, Noting thAt congEStIoN "increaSeS the emIsSioNs oF greeNHousE gases As it causEs autOMobiles to idle lONger while on roADwAYS."

HOWeveR, thAt claim, and tHe biLL itsElf, hAVe CriTIcs. A sPokesPeRSoN For the Coalition for CLeAn Air, BIll MaGavern, calls thE notion thaT IDLing cars CreaTE mORe greenhouse gaS emisSions than sPEeding onEs "ridIculous."

"IN fact it woULD increasE emIssIon Of gREEnHouse gas," he telLS sFGAtE. "emissioN goEs up at hIgh SpeEds; ThiS wOuld encouRage peopLe To DrIvE caRs reaLLy fast on OuR hiGhWay, And thAT would IncreAse eMiSsIOns Coming fROm TRAnspOrTaTion... The OnLy secTor wHEre EmissioNs are incrEasINg in caLiFornia."

ACcording to the PrOposal, fundInG foR SB 319's neW LAnes woulD come from the Greenhouse GAS ReductIon fund, wHich Currently AllOcates 35 PerCEnt of iTs annuAl proCeEds TO ProjeCTS sUppOrTing affordABLe hOusinG, tRansIt or susTainable communitieS. it's Not yet clear hoW muCh it WOUlD coST tO BuiLd THe nEW Lanes. (An additionAl 25 percent oF tHE fUnd is saved FOr "cErTain comPonents Of a spECified hIgh-speed rAil projecT.")

ReLATed: gavIn Newsom caLls SF-to-La high-speeD Rail uNReAlistIc, pUshes fOr RouTe froM BakerSFieLd to MErced

MAgAvern iS doubTfUl that thE bill will get much further Along iN the lEgiSlation prOceSS, noTing that iN addItion to the PolLutIon isSue, THere's A sigNIfIcaNT addeD safETy risk for DRiVerS.

"tHiS bill would aPPROprIate dOllARs for tHis fOol's err
 with no speed limit 1 / 1 9 Back toGalle ry
Mo to rist s si ck of idling i n  tra ffic on Interstate 5 i n Cal if o rnia wo uld t heoreti c al l y  ha ve  a not he r  o ption , i f a new  bill intr odu ce d on Fridayt othe stateleg islature tur nsinto a  r eal i ty. B utcriti cs say that's  not like ly . 

Stat e  Senato r Jo hn M oorlach (R-Orange Co u nty) introduce d SB 3 19 as a  wa y t o ease con ge stion on I-5a nd S t ate Route 99. Moo rlach pitch e d t he ide aasa  way t o eas eg ree nhouse gass es f rom idlin g cars . 

The p l an call s forthe  De part m en tofTr a nsp o rt ati o n t o buildtw oaddit iona l t r affi c l anes  on t he north andsou thbo u nddirec tions  ofbo th hi ghways . Tho se  lanes would no t ha ve speedlim it s,al thoug h  drive rsinthe oth er pre- e xis ti n g la nes would still ne ed t oabide by  the o f fi ci a l 65 mil es  pe r ho u r  limi t.
R EL ATED: Be st foo d  s to ps on I -5  betwe en  th e B ay Ar e a an d LosAngeles
Theb ill states tha t  there are se v er a l  r e ason s f or puttingfort h  SB319. Pr ima r ily,as it  r e ad s , the goal is to re du ce gre enhou se gas emissi ons, notin g t hat cong esti o n" increases theemiss ions of gr e enhousegases  as it c auses aut o m obiles t o i dle  lo nge r wh ile on roadwa y s ."
Ho wever,tha t claim , a ndthe  bi ll  itself,have cri ti cs .Aspo kespe r son forth e C oa lit ion f o r Clea n Air , Bi ll  M a gav ern, ca l ls t he n ot io n th atid lingcars cre ate mor e greenho use gasem is sions t han speedingon es "ridicu lo us. "

"In f act it w ould increase emissiono f green hou se ga s,"he tellsSFG ATE. " Emi s sion g oes up  at h ig h s p e eds;t h is  wo ul d encourag e peo ple t odriv e carsreally fast on our hig hway, and tha t w ould i nc rea s ee mis si o nsc o ming from trans portation. .. th e only sec t orwh ere emi ssionsare i n creasin g in Cali fornia."
A ccor d i ngto the pro posal, f unding fo r  SB 3 1 9' s new  la nes wo ul d c ome f rom th e  Gr eenho use Ga sReduct ion F un d, which  currently allocates 35  perce nt of  it s annualpro c eed s to proj ects  supportin g a ffo rdabl e h o using , tr a ns ito r sus tain a ble commu n it ies . It 's not yetc l e arhow m uch it wou ld c ost to build then ew lanes. (Anaddi t i ona l 2 5  per ce nt of the fund  is  s a v ed for " ce rtain compo nents of  a speci fied h igh-sp eed rai l pr o ject." )

R ELA TED: Gavi n N ew s om call sSF - to-LAhigh -s peed r ail un r eali s t ic, pushes for r outef r om Ba k ers field  t o Merce d 

Ma gavern isdoubtful th at the  bil l wil l get m uc h furt her  a long in th e  legislat ion p rocess,  n otin g t hat in  add i t ion t o th epol lution is s u e, th er e 'sa si gnifi ca nt a dded safe t y risk f ord rivers. 
"Th i s  billw ou l d  appropria tedolla r s  for thisf ool' s  e r r
 with_no speed_limit 1 / 19_Back to_Gallery

Motorists_sick of_idling_in traffic on_Interstate 5 in_California would theoretically have_another option, if_a_new bill introduced on Friday to the state legislature turns into a reality. But_critics_say that's_not_likely.

State_Senator John Moorlach (R-Orange County)_introduced SB 319 as a_way to_ease congestion on I-5 and State Route 99._Moorlach_pitched the idea_as a way to ease greenhouse gasses from idling_cars.

The plan calls for the Department_of Transportation to_build_two_additional traffic lanes on_the north and southbound directions of_both highways. Those lanes would not_have speed limits, although drivers in the_other pre-existing lanes would still need_to abide by the official_65 miles_per hour limit.

RELATED: Best food_stops on I-5_between the_Bay Area and_Los Angeles

The bill states that there_are several reasons_for putting forth SB 319. Primarily,_as_it reads, the_goal_is_to reduce_greenhouse gas emissions,_noting_that congestion_"increases_the emissions of greenhouse gases as_it_causes automobiles to idle longer while on_roadways."

However, that claim, and_the_bill itself, have critics._A spokesperson for the Coalition_for Clean Air, Bill Magavern, calls_the notion_that idling_cars create more greenhouse gas emissions than speeding ones "ridiculous."

"In fact_it would increase emission of greenhouse_gas," he tells SFGATE._"Emission goes_up_at high speeds;_this_would encourage_people to drive cars really fast on_our highway,_and that would increase emissions coming_from transportation... the only_sector_where emissions are increasing in California."

According_to the proposal, funding for SB_319's new lanes would come_from_the_Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which_currently allocates 35 percent of its_annual proceeds to_projects supporting affordable housing, transit or sustainable_communities._It's not yet clear how much_it_would cost to build the new_lanes._(An_additional 25 percent of the_fund is saved for "certain components_of a specified high-speed rail project.")

RELATED: Gavin Newsom calls_SF-to-LA high-speed rail_unrealistic, pushes for route from_Bakersfield_to_Merced

Magavern is doubtful that the bill will get much further_along in_the legislation process,_noting that in addition to the pollution issue, there's a_significant added safety risk for drivers.

"This bill_would appropriate dollars for this fool's err