M1 to be 50mph around Sheffield??

[Cyclone]

But 8.4 is clearly 40% more than 6 minutes which is what I actually said.

 

Quite true

[Eater Sundae]

Suppose you implement this over a 7 mile stretch. At 70 mph it will take you 6 minutes to pass through that zone, at 60mph it will take you 7 minutes and at 50 mph it will take you 8.4 minutes i.e. 40% longer. So surely unless your emissions are more than 40% less at 50 mph than at 70mph, the amount of exhaust you pump out in the area will be more. According to this document, that doesn't seem to be the case. So what is the council's evidence that this move would improve the air quality?

 

Another feature of the data in the link is the pronounced kink corresponding to 55 mph, which appears to apply to all ages of cars. Although I don't know the source, of the data, I'm inclined to think it is very much developed around a 55 mph s[peed limit, and the data for higher speeds is limited, maybe to one or two speeds only, so there isn't a curve, but an abrupt change.

[Michael_N]

One thing I find increadibly amazing here is why Sheffield City Council are pushing for this, when only 2 miles of the M1 motorway actually run through its boundary. The majority of the M1 in South Yorkshire either runs through Rotherham (which also has the M18) and Barnsley.

[Kid Sampson]

One thing I find increadibly amazing here is why Sheffield City Council are pushing for this, when only 2 miles of the M1 motorway actually run through its boundary. The majority of the M1 in South Yorkshire either runs through Rotherham (which also has the M18) and Barnsley.

 

This is the problem with politicians. The urge to tinker infests every level of politics, and it is far easier for them to introduce new rules and regulations than it is to repeal old ones, or to make life just a little easier for us all. Plus the peasants will notice rules and regulation, it will give the politician a feeling of power. Lowering the speed limit to 50mph will make some politician somewhere fluff their feathers and think "I did that," when in reality all it will do is inconvenience folk for very little return. Hence why they wont bother to sort out the traffic light phasing which is the one thing which will really sort out our air pollution levels. Nobody would really notice it, it would just sort of quietly happen. The more levels of government we get the more tinkering and restricting gets done. Thankfully we don't live in Scotland or Wales so we only have to put up with Westminster, the E.U, the Council and numerous Quangos, which frankly is enough for anyone.

 

That, and they will be able to put up SPECS and watch the bank balance grow.

 

[/Cynic]

[alchresearch]

One thing I find increadibly amazing here is why Sheffield City Council are pushing for this, when only 2 miles of the M1 motorway actually run through its boundary. The majority of the M1 in South Yorkshire either runs through Rotherham (which also has the M18) and Barnsley.

 

But the bit causing the problem is at Meadowhall, which is in the Sheffield boundary if my OS map is anything to go by.

[Number Six]

Totally agree with you about traffic light phasing. I regularly drive through Sheffield at ungodly hours, it is amazing how many lights you get stopped at when there is no other traffic on the road. I can only conclude it is deliberate. Worst example for me is if you drive from the Leadmill area on Sheaf Street to Park Square roundabout. You will generally get stopped at Harmer Lane (where busses turn off to go up to the bus station - bear in mind this is early hours of the morning we're talking about ) - then you will get stopped at the next set of lights (Pond St) before finally getting stopped again at Park Square. Stopped three times for absolutely no reason. I have also noticed Tinsley to be bad, especially Shepcote Lane/Europa Link Road area. Total waste of time and fuel. It simply has to be deliberate, nobody could be so stupid as to phase lights like that by accident.

 

This.

 

The lights in Sheffield have no 'green wave' - you cannot time it so that you hit a run of green lights. This is either incompetence or deliberate.

 

I don't know why the traffic lights on Park Square are even on apart from at peak times.

 

Also, poor road surfaces don't help - people brake to avoid potholes and generally lose momentum very slightly over each ripple - multiply that by every car in the city and I expect it makes quite a difference.

[Planner1]

One thing I find increadibly amazing here is why Sheffield City Council are pushing for this, when only 2 miles of the M1 motorway actually run through its boundary. The majority of the M1 in South Yorkshire either runs through Rotherham (which also has the M18) and Barnsley.

 

It's because the M1 runs through and area of dense housing, Tinsley, where there are high levels of pollutants which come from the vehicles using the M1.

[Lounge Jay]

It's because the M1 runs through and area of dense housing, Tinsley, where there are high levels of pollutants which come from the vehicles using the M1.

 

The notion that slowing down traffic passing through that section of the M1 to make the air clearer for Tinsley seems ridiculous to me, I'd like to see the evidence the council has that this will work.

[BarryRiley]

ride a bicycle and ignore them all, you would be amazed at the time thats saved doing that

 

I'd love to but my round trip is too large.

[DT Ralge]

The notion that slowing down traffic passing through that section of the M1 to make the air clearer for Tinsley seems ridiculous to me, I'd like to see the evidence the council has that this will work.

 

The notion that you use more fuel per mile to travel at 70 rather than at 50 is self-evident. So there is an obvious cost, emissions-wise, attached to this higher speed.

The Council doesn't really need to do a great deal of research to know that this is the case.

Anyway, Look Leeds suggested that the reduction in speed was being considered in order to reduce the incidence of crashes which is a wholly different objective.