Jump to content


A630 Parkway Upgrade Works

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

That 1.75 minutes twice a day over the course of a 5-day working week and average working lifetime, taking off some for holidays, equates to around 700 extra hours per person.

 

Forgive me for being selfish but I'd rather do something else with those 700 hours rather than regressing our technological, vehicular and road building developments just to appease the eco-warriors.

 

As for your statement on improvements to air quality, that is a subject of great debate and contrary evidence. Even right this moment it is still being trialled and experimented on.

 

In any event, given the already announced changes and restrictions on vehicles which will be pushed towards hybrid and electric such concerns have dwindling merit.  Are we going to get a guarantee that the road speed will leap back up to it's appropriate limit of 70+ if everyone drives electric?   Are we going to get incentivised to buy eco-friendly vehicles if those with them are free to drive at the higher speed?  Do we have examples of other places in the world where they have increased speed limits once such vehicles have been adopted ?

 

I very much doubt it - which to my eyes makes a this whole emissions angle a load of crock.  

 

I wonder if this is in fact just another desprate cash grab by the local authorities trying to increase their ego and budgets by snatching some "green" grant dangled in front of them.  They whored SY out for the M1 testing, we had the Shalesmoor bike lane debacle and here we go again..... Knickers are back in the handbag

Doesn't really work like that though, does it. You get those 700 hours in 1.75 minute chunks, with which you will do nothing extra in your life. You won't leave for work 1.75 minutes later, have an extra 1.75 minutes in bed. So a bit of a spurious argument.

 

I can find loads of studies pointing to a marked decrease in polution when speeds are reduced. I can find none which say the opposite. Not that I imagine you care, they are all just "eco-warriors", when in fact those whose health is negatively impacted by pollution are just ordinary people who happen to live near major roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

Doesn't really work like that though, does it. You get those 700 hours in 1.75 minute chunks, with which you will do nothing extra in your life. You won't leave for work 1.75 minutes later, have an extra 1.75 minutes in bed. So a bit of a spurious argument.

 

I can find loads of studies pointing to a marked decrease in polution when speeds are reduced. I can find none which say the opposite. Not that I imagine you care, they are all just "eco-warriors", when in fact those whose health is negatively impacted by pollution are just ordinary people who happen to live near major roads.

So why don't we have 56 mph speed limits?  56mph being found to be the sweet spot between fuel efficiency, emissions and speed, hence HGVs being limited to 56 despite the legal limit being 60. 

Surely if it was really about emissions and air quality then the proven 'best' speed would be the new limit.

Take my car as an example, common family car. At 50mph it's in 5th at ~2100-2200 rpm. Get to 55 and I can engage 6th, any earlier and the engine labours so increasing the load, putting more fuel & spiking emissions. Using 6th to travel at 55+ drops the engine rpm to ~ 1300 & even at 70mph the rpm doesn't breach 2000rpm. Fuel is saved, emissions are significantly lower than at 50mph. 

Most, if not all modern vehicles for the UK market are geared for this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Resident said:

So why don't we have 56 mph speed limits?  56mph being found to be the sweet spot between fuel efficiency, emissions and speed, hence HGVs being limited to 56 despite the legal limit being 60. 

Surely if it was really about emissions and air quality then the proven 'best' speed would be the new limit.

Take my car as an example, common family car. At 50mph it's in 5th at ~2100-2200 rpm. Get to 55 and I can engage 6th, any earlier and the engine labours so increasing the load, putting more fuel & spiking emissions. Using 6th to travel at 55+ drops the engine rpm to ~ 1300 & even at 70mph the rpm doesn't breach 2000rpm. Fuel is saved, emissions are significantly lower than at 50mph. 

Most, if not all modern vehicles for the UK market are geared for this. 

Don't think that's true. Its the most efficient of 30, 56 and 75 mph, which were the test speeds of an old fuel consumption test. According to RAC, typically cars are most efficient between 45 and 50 mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Are we going to get a guarantee that the road speed will leap back up to it's appropriate limit of 70+

If the real reason for the reduction to 50 mph

is to reduce pollution then fair enough. However, you make a very valid point about reinstating the 70mph when all eco  vehicles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

Don't think that's true. Its the most efficient of 30, 56 and 75 mph, which were the test speeds of an old fuel consumption test. According to RAC, typically cars are most efficient between 45 and 50 mph.

But the RAC "Experts" also state that turning on the heaters costs fuel in the same way as cooling with A/C, which is ridiculous as cars (ICE fitted) only bleed heat from the engine cooling system, the heat is already generated and the fan power is nominal at best so measurable extra power required therefore no extra fuel consumption. Cooling with A/C however can cost as ~10% of engine power to run the compressor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2021 at 16:22, Resident said:

But the RAC "Experts" also state that turning on the heaters costs fuel in the same way as cooling with A/C, which is ridiculous as cars (ICE fitted) only bleed heat from the engine cooling system, the heat is already generated and the fan power is nominal at best so measurable extra power required therefore no extra fuel consumption. Cooling with A/C however can cost as ~10% of engine power to run the compressor.

Being wrong on one thing doesn't mean they are wrong on others, and there are numerous other sources of essentially the same information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people live next to the parkway.

 

50's much quieter than 70.

 

 

the parkway isn't built to motorway standards : some of the joining slip-roads are short, some are uphill, some are short *and* uphill. this means some of the joining traffic can't get up to 70.  (some vehicles struggle to accelerate to 50 by the time they're forced to join)

 

Traffic merging, with only 2 lanes, and a big speed differential, is dangerous. 

 

50's fine with me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What nonsense. 

 

Lots of people live next to motorways. Lots of motorways have junctions that require an uphill before joining. Lots of motorway sections only have two lanes.  

 

If cars are really so low in power that they cannot get up to speed to join safely they quite frankly shouldn't be on the road.  I don't believe for a second that most vehicles cannot get up to speed and if the real reason is some doddery over cautious nervous fleshy part behind the wheel then they shouldn't be on the road either. 

 

As for those residents, I'm sure they would prefer a lower speed and slightly quieter life but I'm willing to bet the Parkway has been there a damn sight longer than most of those whiners have lived in their houses. They chose to move in. 30 years ago they had an airport in their back gardens so should have no complaints over the noise from the Parkway. The vast majority of which is nowhere near residential houses and is mostly passing industrial or or commercial buildings. 

 

Its purpose-built to be wide, straight and fast. Given the fact that a huge number of twisty-turn country roads have a national speed limit of 60 I am not buying this crap about low speed safety of 50 on a purpose-built dual carriageway road.  

 

We are going backwards to try and appease the minority.   Reducing perfectly safe speeds and seemingly advocating limiting our advancements in vehicle technology.

 

Its rediculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Its rediculous

It’s what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

What nonsense. 

 

Lots of people live next to motorways. Lots of motorways have junctions that require an uphill before joining. Lots of motorway sections only have two lanes.  

 

If cars are really so low in power that they cannot get up to speed to join safely they quite frankly shouldn't be on the road.  I don't believe for a second that most vehicles cannot get up to speed and if the real reason is some doddery over cautious nervous fleshy part behind the wheel then they shouldn't be on the road either. 

 

As for those residents, I'm sure they would prefer a lower speed and slightly quieter life but I'm willing to bet the Parkway has been there a damn sight longer than most of those whiners have lived in their houses. They chose to move in. 30 years ago they had an airport in their back gardens so should have no complaints over the noise from the Parkway. The vast majority of which is nowhere near residential houses and is mostly passing industrial or or commercial buildings. 

 

Its purpose-built to be wide, straight and fast. Given the fact that a huge number of twisty-turn country roads have a national speed limit of 60 I am not buying this crap about low speed safety of 50 on a purpose-built dual carriageway road.  

 

We are going backwards to try and appease the minority.   Reducing perfectly safe speeds and seemingly advocating limiting our advancements in vehicle technology.

 

Its rediculous

What about commercial vehicles? I've been behind a few lorries who are nowhere near 50 getting on to the m1 at 29a (north bound). That's pretty short. Some parkway ones I'd bet are shorter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/02/2021 at 09:54, ads36 said:

people live next to the parkway.

 

50's much quieter than 70.

Depends what gear you're in to be fair. Can't make blanket statements like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, probedb said:

Depends what gear you're in to be fair. Can't make blanket statements like that.

Most highway noise is from tyre noise, according to a quick Google, which increases with speed, regardless of gear selection, and is the dominant noise generator in the speed range 30-70mph. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X