Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

[ads36 217]

1) there's usually a queue at each end of the parkway, there's little point going faster.  Reducing the limit won't have any effect on journey times.

 

2) the sliproad up from Darnall is short, and uphill, and has a short merging lane.  I'm surprised it's into a 70 zone, not surprised we're talking about reducing the limit.

 

3) people live beside this road. Reducing the limit seems like a civilised thing to do. 

[Dannyno 19]

I'm not sure how long the 70 stretch is, but the Parkway is 5.5 miles in total.

 

If you drive at 50 mph, you can travel that distance in 6 minutes 36 seconds.   

 

If you drive at 70 mph, you can travel that distance in  4 minutes 43 seconds.

 

So the difference is, er, about 1 minute 53 seconds (on edit: had to double check!).

 

I would imagine the environmental benefits of cutting speed will vastly outweigh the 2 minute increase in journey time (less, of course, because the 70 stretch is not the whole of the road).

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dannyno

[Phili Buster 10]

2 hours ago, Dannyno said:

I'm not sure how long the 70 stretch is, but the Parkway is 5.5 miles in total.

 

If you drive at 50 mph, you can travel that distance in 6 minutes 36 seconds.   

 

If you drive at 70 mph, you can travel that distance in  4 minutes 43 seconds.

 

So the difference is, er, about 1 minute 53 seconds (on edit: had to double check!).

 

I would imagine the environmental benefits of cutting speed will vastly outweigh the 2 minute increase in journey time (less, of course, because the 70 stretch is not the whole of the road).

The 70 limit is from the Handsworth Road roundabout to the M1 both outbound and inbound.

2 hours ago, ads36 said:

1) there's usually a queue at each end of the parkway, there's little point going faster.  Reducing the limit won't have any effect on journey times.

 

2) the sliproad up from Darnall is short, and uphill, and has a short merging lane.  I'm surprised it's into a 70 zone, not surprised we're talking about reducing the limit.

 

3) people live beside this road. Reducing the limit seems like a civilised thing to do. 

It has been 70 at that point ever since they opened that extension to the M1.

 

As for people living beside the road, it is not as if there is a pavement alongside the road.

 

Rather than reducing the speed limit from 70  and it being a "civilised thing to do", a more civilised thing to do would be to enforce the 30 mph limit on Handsworth Road between the railway bridge near The White Nose (sorry Rose) and the roundabout for the Parkway.  There is a fortune to be made on that stretch of road, it is only by good fortune there have not been fatalities on that stretch.

[Janus 28]

I would not have a problem of the 70 being reduced to 50. There would probably be a need for cameras for it to be adhered to.

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, Phili Buster said:

As for people living beside the road, it is not as if there is a pavement alongside the road.

 

It's probably more about noise and disturbance as well as air quality/pollution. The faster a vehicle goes, the more noise is generated. There are noise barriers going up in various places on the motorway network where houses are close to the road.

1 hour ago, Phili Buster said:

Rather than reducing the speed limit from 70  and it being a "civilised thing to do", a more civilised thing to do would be to enforce the 30 mph limit on Handsworth Road between the railway bridge near The White Nose (sorry Rose) and the roundabout for the Parkway.  There is a fortune to be made on that stretch of road, it is only by good fortune there have not been fatalities on that stretch.

Why don't you ask South Yorkshire Police to carry out mobile speed enforcement there? They do enforce in areas of community concern. Give them a call on the 101 non emergency number.

[Phili Buster 10]

27 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It's probably more about noise and disturbance as well as air quality/pollution. The faster a vehicle goes, the more noise is generated. There are noise barriers going up in various places on the motorway network where houses are close to the road.

Why don't you ask South Yorkshire Police to carry out mobile speed enforcement there? They do enforce in areas of community concern. Give them a call on the 101 non emergency number.

All the houses nearby already have sound deadening, which was installed at the time the extension to the Parkway was being built, however I wouldn't class the houses as being particularly close to the road.  I live fairly close to a main road and have become used to the 'noise' such that I often find it difficult to sleep when on holiday due to it being too quiet - I know, it's already been suggested, go to one of those hotels being rebuilt or next to a building site 😉 . As for air quality/pollution, I would have thought that would be less now than previously with modern engines (apart from during rush hour queueing traffic).

 

Hadn't thought about 101 to be fair, thanks for tip. I will try them this afternoon (I get free calls of a weekend) but liable to be a long wait.

[Cyclone 10]

On 06/07/2019 at 13:40, PRESLEY said:

No advantage to driving slower  safety springs to mind. 

Of course, so you'll be driving at 5 mph for safety reasons with a man in front of car waving a flag from now on?

Or perhaps you'd consider the speed limit to be safe, in appropriate conditions of course...  Like today, traffic quite light, weather good, we came down the parkway earlier, I wasn't even driving, but we still did 70 until the 50 zone, as did most of the traffic.

6 hours ago, ads36 said:

1) there's usually a queue at each end of the parkway, there's little point going faster.  Reducing the limit won't have any effect on journey times.

 

2) the sliproad up from Darnall is short, and uphill, and has a short merging lane.  I'm surprised it's into a 70 zone, not surprised we're talking about reducing the limit.

 

3) people live beside this road. Reducing the limit seems like a civilised thing to do. 

There's only ever a queue during the rush hour.

So that leaves the vast majority of the time without a queue.

There are very few houses next to the 70 zone and they're set quite far back with screening.  Most of the length of the 70 zone is next to only industrial estate, AMRC or fields.

[darylslinn 10]

And the final stretch from Catcliffe to the M1 gets busier by the day with the AMRC and Waverley complexes expanding..... what does need changing is the lanes at the end of the Parkway and timing of the lights around the M1 roundabout.

[Planner1 438]

35 minutes ago, darylslinn said:

And the final stretch from Catcliffe to the M1 gets busier by the day with the AMRC and Waverley complexes expanding..... what does need changing is the lanes at the end of the Parkway and timing of the lights around the M1 roundabout.

The signals are operated by Highways England.

 

Rotherham Council have a scheme in development for providing extra capacity on the parkway at that junction.

[FinBak 12]

1 hour ago, darylslinn said:

And the final stretch from Catcliffe to the M1 gets busier by the day with the AMRC and Waverley complexes expanding..... what does need changing is the lanes at the end of the Parkway and timing of the lights around the M1 roundabout.

Bang on...

[PRESLEY 1,229]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Of course, so you'll be driving at 5 mph for safety reasons with a man in front of car waving a flag from now on?

Or perhaps you'd consider the speed limit to be safe, in appropriate conditions of course...  Like today, traffic quite light, weather good, we came down the parkway earlier, I wasn't even driving, but we still did 70 until the 50 zone, as did most of the traffic.

There's only ever a queue during the rush hour.

So that leaves the vast majority of the time without a queue.

There are very few houses next to the 70 zone and they're set quite far back with screening.  Most of the length of the 70 zone is next to only industrial estate, AMRC or fields.

Speed kills. 

[Cyclone 10]

You stay entirely stationary all the time then for safety reasons?