60mph speed limit proposal for M1

[truman 10]

Might this be the change required to get the Ikea planning permission approved?

 

High vehicle emissions particularly in the area around Tinsley seem to be the chief blocking point.

 

As far down as junction 28?

[L00b 441]

High vehicle emissions particularly in the area around Tinsley seem to be the chief blocking point.

That is simply due to the geography of the place. You could reduce the speed to 50, or even lower, that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference: enough dry weather with little enough wind for long enough (i.e. insufficient factors to disperse ambient emissions), and adverse pollution readings are unavoidable.

 

Substantially the same issue has long afflicted the city of Thionville in North East France, with the A31 going past it half-a-mile to the west (m'way crosses over a bridge/viaduct, most of city is in a valley - just like Tinsley). Just about every winter and summer, after a long enough spell of clear and windless days, pollution levels are problematic. They've tried a static 90 kph limit for the last 5 years, hasn't made any difference - average traffic levels have increased in the same time to the extent of nullifying the measure.

Edited January 6, 2014 by L00b

[Cyclone 10]

There's a response form you can fill in here...

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267632/M1_J28_to_J35a_MSL_Consultation_Document.pdf

 

The posted email address appears to be different to what the form actually says (the mistake is there's though, not the poster).

 

[email protected]

 

Is what comes up if you click, but

 

[email protected]

 

is what the document actually says...

 

Probably deliberate so that they get very few replies and can claim everyone in S Yorks, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire was in favour of the idea.

[richkent 10]

HGVs are limited to 56mph so no change in the fumes they're belching out.

[geared 319]

Is this to try and even out the speed of traffic to reduce the speeding / heavy braking patches, or is it just pollution? Does pollution increase in these heavy braking / acceleration areas?

 

I can't speak for the M1 as I don't use it during the week but I can say that the reduction of the M60 speed limit to 50 around Stockport greatly improved the general flow of traffic.

 

Pollution does increase in heavy braking areas as that kind of driving does lead to greater engine use and therefore emisssions.

 

What you've gotta remember tho is at J34 the M1 looses a lane.

 

No amount of speed restrictions or anything is going to prevent the inevitable chaos caused by cramming 3 lanes of busy traffic into 2.

This causes a knock-on effect which leads to problems all around.

[mattb2059 10]

What a load of **insert expletive**.

 

Another excuse to fine motorists for daring to go 68mph.

 

i got a sp50 through other day for doing 57mph so yh there deffnatly fining people

[tinfoilhat 11]

And of course, the measuring of air samples during prolonged periods of roadworks which have been congesting this particular section for the past year or so, has been taken into account, right?

 

I do 31<>34 every day at rush hour, have been for the past 5 years. You can't even get to 70 at these times!

 

When there's no roadworks (can't remember the last time there weren't any!), there's the obligatory 45 mph pootler at the front merging with 60+ nearside lane traffic, then the snail racers between the nearside (60-odd mph) and middle (62-odd mph) lanes, and the uninterrupted snake, moving caterpillar-like (70>0>50>0>70>0>etc.), of the fast lane.

 

70>60 won't make a blind bit of difference to air pollution levels - there's more traffic every year regardless.

 

You're right about rush hour.

 

However, certainly in the TFH mobile fuel economy drops significantly when you go above 65mph. However it's 2014 - surely we should cracked this nut and far more efficient cars should be on our roads.

[Cyclone 10]

You can't crack physics, the faster you go the more energy you have to expend against wind resistance (and it's a square law that applies, not linear).

 

Cars can be made more aerodynamic, but not a huge amount than they already are. Engines can be tuned to be most efficient at certain speeds (but due to EU testing, they are optimised to around 60 as that's what they are tested at).

Rolling resistance can be reduced by more efficient mechanical systems, different tyre design, but they're at about the limit of what we can achieve economically now...

Etc...

[Grazzer 10]

This is about raising funds for the Government either in terms of fines or more likely tolls on this busy stretch

[geared 319]

It totally depends on the vehicle you're driving tho.

 

I seriously doubt they have emissions data for all cars on the road at all speeds they travel, that sorta stuff just doesn't exist.

The emissions data manufacturers release is so heavily doctored it's rubbish anyway.

 

Lets not forget that fact that a good number of people don't even drive at 70 anyway, maybe enforcing the 70 limit would get less public backlash than forcing people down to 60.

 

I just can't wait for the time when I wanna overtake a truck on the M1 Tinsley viaduct.

 

It's windy and the trucks rocking around, I feel great creeping past 4mph faster than the truck thats about to crush me.

[TomA 10]

Personally im in favour of it although I would reduce the area from J31 to J35, I'd also reduce the M18 from the M1 to J1. During rush hour your lucky to even get past 60 on these stretches anyway, let alone reach 70. That covers 7 - 9 in the morning and 4 - 7 in the evening. The only time anyone would actually be affected is between 9 and 4. This is a time where the amount of HGV's on the road is at its greatest so you've already lost at least a lane due to the speed limitations for these, not to mention the chaos that is caused when one has an accident.

 

For safety reasons rather than anything else it would be a good idea. J31 - J32 is especially hazardous southbound where you have lots of traffic joining from the M18 + generally a large queue of traffic exiting at J31 which stretches down the M1 during rush hour.

Northbound isnt as much of an issue however you do get quite a few nutters leaving on the M18 right at the last minute.

J32 - 33 incorporates a fairly tight turn by motorway standards, on top of this, Soutbound traffic has to deal with a large amount of traffic joining from the parkway as well as a steep incline resulting in slower traffic anyway. Northbound has a lot of traffic queueing to join the parkway in the morning. It also has to deal with a lot of traffic from the M18 and a steep descent which increases traffic speed.

J33 - 34 Southbound has to deal with a lot of traffic queueing for the parkway on the slip. The road itself is fairly exposed to high winds at this point too which increases the risk to HGV's.

Northbound has to deal with a large amount of traffic joining from the parkway. It also has to cope with large amounts of traffic leaving for meadowhall plus the preparation for a reduction in lanes due to the 2 lane enforcement above J34.

J34 itself is very hazardous as its extremely exposed to high winds and is just 2 lanes of traffic.

J34 - 35 Southbound has to deal with traffic merging into the inside 2 lanes to cross J34. it also has to deal with a lot of traffic exiting for meadowhall.

Northbound has to deal with a lot of traffic merging on the M1 from meadowhall.

[butlers 261]

In the release does say the distance may be reduced.

Its also about increasing. capacity with smooth flows, the limit goes back to 70 after 7pm.

In a bright shiny future, when the roads truely are full, HS2 will br whistling by at 180mph

Edited January 6, 2014 by butlers