Committee hears bill to raise speed limits on widened highways; safety advocates urge rejection

The House Transportation Committee heard testimony on House Bill 312, a proposal from Representative Jedidiah Hinkle to raise posted speed limits by five miles per hour on national highways that have been expanded from two lanes to four lanes. Representative Hinkle said the change would apply both during the day and at night and is meant to address an inconsistency that left some widened stretches unable to use earlier statutory passing allowances.

Hinkle, the bill sponsor, told the committee the 2017 law allowing drivers to exceed the posted speed by 10 mph while passing was written for two‑lane roads and shorter designated passing zones; when those stretches were later reconstructed as continuous four‑lane sections north of Townsend, they lost that statutory allowance. "This bill increases the speed limit on national highways that have been expanded to 4 lanes for passenger vehicles by 5 mile per hour, both during the day and also at night," Hinkle said, adding the change would let passenger vehicles pass trucks without immediately risking a ticket.

Why it matters: safety and scope The measure prompted a sharp safety debate. Omar Masood of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety testified in opposition, saying higher posted speeds increase crash forces and reduce reaction time. "Advocates strongly opposes HB 312 to permit a 5 mile per hour increase in speed limits on certain national highways," Masood said, and he cited national and state data indicating higher limits were associated with more traffic deaths. Masood urged the committee to reject the bill to prevent additional fatalities.

The Department of Transportation signaled conditional support but pressed for a narrowly drawn amendment. DOT Director Chris Dorrington and staff said they worked with Representative Hinkle on an amendment that would limit the bill’s application to the specific stretch of US 287 between Townsend and I‑90. DOT traffic engineer Gabe Priebe told the committee that the reconstructed section has a higher design speed ("somewhere in the 70 mile an hour, 75 mile an hour design speed") and noted national guidance recommending minimum lengths for higher‑speed zones.

Fiscal and operational details DOT staff told members the fiscal note reflects only the change in signage handled as routine maintenance and, as amended to apply to the Townsend–I‑90 section, would have a net fiscal impact of zero. Members raised concerns about transition zones where four‑lane sections revert to two lanes and whether frequent speed changes would confuse drivers; DOT said the amendment includes a minimum‑length approach and that transitional speed zones would be used to step speeds down logically.

Points of contention and next steps Committee members pressed DOT on technical design differences between interstates and reconstructed four‑lane highways, truck tire speed ratings, and the specific geographic scope. Representative Smith questioned whether truck tires are designed for particular speeds; DOT staff replied tire ratings vary by application. Several members reiterated they wanted the committee’s legal analyst to draft a formal amendment that matches the narrow scope discussed in the hearing.

The hearing closed with Representative Hinkle asking for a do‑pass recommendation; the committee did not take a vote at the hearing. The committee advised staff to prepare a formal amendment for future consideration.

Attributions: Quotes in this article are drawn from the hearing record and attributed to representatives and witnesses who spoke at the committee hearing.