M1 motorway mandatory speed limit reduction consultation
Discussion
On 06 January an 8 week Highways Agency consultation begins, around proposals to reduce the speed limit on approximately 30 miles of the M1 in two large sections between J28 and J35A. This won't be variable or temporary if it goes ahead, it will be permanent. Air quality considerations are highlighted in the announcement letter. As well as being a point for discussion if anyone is interested, it's also a heads-up about the consultation in terms of opportunity to respond. When further details are available and the online element is up, somebpody (possibly me if I remember) will post more details.
Possibly, do you have additional info?
ETA The consultation document referred to in the letter, which I have, is only available as hard copy atm and I don't have a copy to hand. They might have said a bit more in the letter but all should be revealed on Monday.
ETA The consultation document referred to in the letter, which I have, is only available as hard copy atm and I don't have a copy to hand. They might have said a bit more in the letter but all should be revealed on Monday.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 4th January 16:58
Interesting. They've only just finished consulting on the variable speed limits along this stretch - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It's the section that is immediately north of the part from Nottingham that has been widened to four lanes. Guess they have no intention of widening the same way.
Can imagine there is an issue with air quality near J34 Tinsley viaduct though the air quality is probably far better than it was when all the steelworks were operating. But the rest of that section 28 and up is through open countryside. ??
Can imagine there is an issue with air quality near J34 Tinsley viaduct though the air quality is probably far better than it was when all the steelworks were operating. But the rest of that section 28 and up is through open countryside. ??
My understanding was that air quality and noise for local residents was borderline (but just acceptable) at the moment.
The Highways Agency are seeking to implement managed motorway on this section and using the hard shoulder as a running lane tipped the noise and air quality into unacceptable levels. Vehicles would be running a little closer to nearby properties. Not by much, but enough to tip the balance.
I didn't anticipate this response in order to implement managed motorway however.
Edit: There were only 2 posts when I started typing.
FiF, the motorway will not be widened as they have done from J25 to J28. Future implementation of Managed Motorway will generally involve installation of VCB (vertical concrete barrier in the central reserve) which takes up a little less space than traditional safety barrier and use of hard shoulder as a running lane. This means the hard shoulder can be widened slightly to be used as a running lane, without the need for additional land take.
The Highways Agency are seeking to implement managed motorway on this section and using the hard shoulder as a running lane tipped the noise and air quality into unacceptable levels. Vehicles would be running a little closer to nearby properties. Not by much, but enough to tip the balance.
I didn't anticipate this response in order to implement managed motorway however.
Edit: There were only 2 posts when I started typing.
FiF, the motorway will not be widened as they have done from J25 to J28. Future implementation of Managed Motorway will generally involve installation of VCB (vertical concrete barrier in the central reserve) which takes up a little less space than traditional safety barrier and use of hard shoulder as a running lane. This means the hard shoulder can be widened slightly to be used as a running lane, without the need for additional land take.
Edited by mudster on Saturday 4th January 17:09
mudster said:
My understanding was that air quality and noise for local residents was borderline (but just acceptable) at the moment.
The Highways Agency are seeking to implement managed motorway on this section and using the hard shoulder as a running lane tipped the noise and air quality into unacceptable levels. Vehicles would be running a little closer to nearby properties. Not by much, but enough to tip the balance.
Perhaps they could install wind turbines. The Highways Agency are seeking to implement managed motorway on this section and using the hard shoulder as a running lane tipped the noise and air quality into unacceptable levels. Vehicles would be running a little closer to nearby properties. Not by much, but enough to tip the balance.
Streaky
mudster said:
My understanding was that air quality and noise for local residents was borderline (but just acceptable) at the moment.
The Highways Agency are seeking to implement managed motorway on this section and using the hard shoulder as a running lane tipped the noise and air quality into unacceptable levels. Vehicles would be running a little closer to nearby properties. Not by much, but enough to tip the balance.
I didn't anticipate this response in order to implement managed motorway however.
I've just had a look at this, and there are only two areas of significant residential areas on that section. To the west of the motorway immediately north of J28, After that apart from isolated bods the next set is to the East of the motorway just before J34 Meadowhall. In both those cases air pollution is made worse by queuing traffic and I don't see how a general and permanent speed reduction will sort that problem.The Highways Agency are seeking to implement managed motorway on this section and using the hard shoulder as a running lane tipped the noise and air quality into unacceptable levels. Vehicles would be running a little closer to nearby properties. Not by much, but enough to tip the balance.
I didn't anticipate this response in order to implement managed motorway however.
Managed motorway with variable limits can deal with the busy times but a general reduction is ridiculous.
mudster said:
FiF, the motorway will not be widened as they have done from J25 to J28. Future implementation of Managed Motorway will generally involve installation of VCB (vertical concrete barrier in the central reserve) which takes up a little less space than traditional safety barrier and use of hard shoulder as a running lane. This means the hard shoulder can be widened slightly to be used as a running lane, without the need for additional land take.
At the moment there are severe delays regularly on this section due to building the VCB. So did they start the work before thinking it through. 
FiF said:
Managed motorway with variable limits can deal with the busy times but a general reduction is ridiculous.
That's my view and I aim to let the HA know on Monday or soon after, and why I made a point of mentioning it in the OP as a proposal for something not variable and not temporary.Hopefully others will do likewise, but each to their own view etc.
I won't say kerching.
Ooops.
FiF said:
At the moment there are severe delays regularly on this section due to building the VCB. So did they start the work before thinking it through.
It's the first phase of the managed motorway (although not actually badged as such). I suspect there will be roadworks there for quite a while but I'm not sure of the delay between the VCB being completed and commencement of managed motorway construction proper.I would completely agree with you on the speed management. No doubt there will be some KPI where certain environmental standards need to be met and the permanent speed restriction has been 'shown' to meet this. Speculation on my part though.
If anyone's interested, IAN 174/13 details the methodology for determining the effects on air quality.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/ghost/ians/inde...
Mudsters post's are spot on, They are now having issues with this in the Mcr area in an attempt to free up traffic flow http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Highways-Agency...
around Manchester,
I gather the plan is to lower the speed limit to steady the flow through to increase air quality, once figures are below required levels they can go ahead with the scheme etc.
This could possibly also affect private developers who are planning to develop near motorways and the SRN when air quality levels are close to EU borderline levels.
Have no fear that NIMBYS and those with an alternative agenda to road building and developments will try and use this to full effect to block anything they disagree with.
around Manchester,
I gather the plan is to lower the speed limit to steady the flow through to increase air quality, once figures are below required levels they can go ahead with the scheme etc.
This could possibly also affect private developers who are planning to develop near motorways and the SRN when air quality levels are close to EU borderline levels.
Have no fear that NIMBYS and those with an alternative agenda to road building and developments will try and use this to full effect to block anything they disagree with.
Maybe I am being a bit stupid but it seems to me that there is something illogical in a permanent full time speed reduction.
Let's assume hard shoulder running causes the environmental conditions to tip over a limit and speed reduction cures that .
On every other managed motorway I have been on, including German autobahn, as soon as hard shoulder running is allowed then temporary speed restrictions are put in place.
Therefore there is no need for a permanent speed reduction as under normal running it will be within limits. On opening up hard shoulder running then a temporary lower limit will be introduced which then brings the environmental stuff back in line.
Unless they are saying that hard shoulder running has to be implemented 24/7 to cope with traffic volumes, which from knowledge of this section is complete bollards. But if they are saying that then I'm sorry but it's not an acceptable solution to have hard shoulder running with a reduced limit they should do their job properly and upgrade it. Including whatever to sort out the noise on the few very short sections as outlined above that don't go through open countryside.
Jesus H Christ we pay enough for this to be sorted properly. It's THE main route to major conurbations in the North for heaven sake.
Let's assume hard shoulder running causes the environmental conditions to tip over a limit and speed reduction cures that .
On every other managed motorway I have been on, including German autobahn, as soon as hard shoulder running is allowed then temporary speed restrictions are put in place.
Therefore there is no need for a permanent speed reduction as under normal running it will be within limits. On opening up hard shoulder running then a temporary lower limit will be introduced which then brings the environmental stuff back in line.
Unless they are saying that hard shoulder running has to be implemented 24/7 to cope with traffic volumes, which from knowledge of this section is complete bollards. But if they are saying that then I'm sorry but it's not an acceptable solution to have hard shoulder running with a reduced limit they should do their job properly and upgrade it. Including whatever to sort out the noise on the few very short sections as outlined above that don't go through open countryside.
Jesus H Christ we pay enough for this to be sorted properly. It's THE main route to major conurbations in the North for heaven sake.
What a load of utter twaddle, are we now prevented from providing proper infrastructure because of this nonsense? I just drove the length of the M1 (as I often do) and yet again saw no one working on the 50mph sections in any case...
Thanks for the heads up, I bet it can only go one way though.
Thanks for the heads up, I bet it can only go one way though.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff