Is the M1 South Yorkshire now 60mph limit ?

[Engineer792]

FiF said:

Engineer792 said:

Do you have a link to the consultation?
I'm very interested in seeing how they arrived at those conclusions

Link to the consultation and a summary of the responses is here

Suspect the nearly 100 page report about the operating regime is here

Thanks for that, should be enough to fill my evenings for the next few days - don't ask

[CoolHands]

a hundred pages of bullst

[xjay1337]

Trax said:

Yep, looks like its here, and to stay for at least 5 years.

I managed to find the consultation document for it, nearly 100 pages, which was produced after the 60mph 7 days a week 7am-7pm was rejected. But I cannot find anything in it in relation to why 60mph will reduce the pollution levels. Its all based on models, and guesses as to what will happen. Basically, when the scheme opens (well opened now), they said running at standard 70mph Smart Motorway - so reduction only to ease congestion, the increased usage between 28 and 35 will exceed some arbitrary limits. Measured along certain places, and mapped how these will increase on further guesses over the years.

The original plan was rejected, as the Government didn't want to use reduced speed limits. Every plan in the new consultation was some sort of limit. (Just to note, the original plan also had a recommendation of 50mph fixed limit, not 60mph). They picked the 60mph at peak 5 days a week, based on what anticipated pollution would be at the measuring stations along the route, all guess work. They don't anticipate going back to normal, until 5 years, but wont if the pollution targets are not met, through natural progress in vehicle pollution, i.e. more electric, less diesels etc.

Now, as far as I know, most of the NO2 is produced by lorries, not cars, and only cars will be affected by the speed limits, so they have set it up to fail, and I am guessing these permanent 60mph, or less, will be with us, on a much expended basis for a very long time. I could put money on a new introduction down to 50mph, when the made up targets are not met - lets see in a few years.

So they will monitor these stations themselves, with no oversight. It may be worth a FOI request after 6 months to see what readings they are getting at these measuring stations, to see if they are below what they anticipated as unacceptable limits in the consultation.

Oh yes, and for some reason, they found a loophole in the regulations, meaning the consultation fell under some EU directive, and therefore no Governmental consultation or acceptance was required.

Honestly in disbelief to the people making those decisions... appalling!!

[Trax]

Engineer792 said:

FiF said:

Engineer792 said:

Do you have a link to the consultation?
I'm very interested in seeing how they arrived at those conclusions

Link to the consultation and a summary of the responses is here

Suspect the nearly 100 page report about the operating regime is here

Thanks for that, should be enough to fill my evenings for the next few days - don't ask

.
Thanks for the link. The second link is the detailed consultation for the peak 60mph introduction. Basically a load of waffle, with no facts to say why.

The first one, is the result of the original consultation, 60mph all day 7 days a week. The answer to responses gives the game away. One of the questions asked by respondants was about the disparity between emmisons produced by HGV and cars. This is not answered at all, just that easing congestion makes HGV more economical, or restricting them during certain parts of the day will drive them onto local roads. Nothing about their emissions won't reduce, as their speed won't. Mind you, do we want to remind them of this, bearing in mind they originally wanted the limit at 50mph?

The long report will be good reding for something who can understand it more than me, especially about the emmisons justification.

[Engineer792]

Trax said:

Engineer792 said:

FiF said:

Engineer792 said:

Do you have a link to the consultation?
I'm very interested in seeing how they arrived at those conclusions

Link to the consultation and a summary of the responses is here

Suspect the nearly 100 page report about the operating regime is here

Thanks for that, should be enough to fill my evenings for the next few days - don't ask

.
Thanks for the link. The second link is the detailed consultation for the peak 60mph introduction. Basically a load of waffle, with no facts to say why.

The first one, is the result of the original consultation, 60mph all day 7 days a week. The answer to responses gives the game away. One of the questions asked by respondants was about the disparity between emmisons produced by HGV and cars. This is not answered at all, just that easing congestion makes HGV more economical, or restricting them during certain parts of the day will drive them onto local roads. Nothing about their emissions won't reduce, as their speed won't. Mind you, do we want to remind them of this, bearing in mind they originally wanted the limit at 50mph?

The long report will be good reding for something who can understand it more than me, especially about the emmisons justification.

The links came from FiF, not me

I've just spent a couple of hours going through that report and, like you, I can't see anything about how emissions reduction comes into the picture, except perhaps for a rather nebulous reference to compensating for projected increases in traffic volume due to all-lane running - no mention of where they think the extra traffic is going to come from.

And HGVs actually emit more NOx at 50mph than at 56mph, so that's one argument they can't use.
Petrol cars also emit more at 50mph than at 70mph, and, in any case, nearly two orders of magnitude less than HGVs
Diesel cars are an anomaly there, emitting more at 70 than at 50, but still much less than HGVs.
(data source: UK National Atmospheric Emission Inventory)

In any case, for a given traffic volume, not only are there more vehicles per mile of road at lower speeds, but slower vehicles also spend more time on the road for the same journey - further diminishing the case for reduced emissions.

[CoolHands]

but whats the point in evening reading it? a) it's bullst and b) you can't stop these kind of wky decisions being imposed anyway, no matter how bks they are

[Engineer792]

I suppose some of us are just sad individuals with too much time on our hands, and who don't know when we're beaten

[FiF]

Engineer792 said:

Trax said:

Engineer792 said:

FiF said:

Engineer792 said:

Do you have a link to the consultation?
I'm very interested in seeing how they arrived at those conclusions

Link to the consultation and a summary of the responses is here

Suspect the nearly 100 page report about the operating regime is here

Thanks for that, should be enough to fill my evenings for the next few days - don't ask

.
Thanks for the link. The second link is the detailed consultation for the peak 60mph introduction. Basically a load of waffle, with no facts to say why.

The first one, is the result of the original consultation, 60mph all day 7 days a week. The answer to responses gives the game away. One of the questions asked by respondants was about the disparity between emmisons produced by HGV and cars. This is not answered at all, just that easing congestion makes HGV more economical, or restricting them during certain parts of the day will drive them onto local roads. Nothing about their emissions won't reduce, as their speed won't. Mind you, do we want to remind them of this, bearing in mind they originally wanted the limit at 50mph?

The long report will be good reding for something who can understand it more than me, especially about the emmisons justification.

The links came from FiF, not me

I've just spent a couple of hours going through that report and, like you, I can't see anything about how emissions reduction comes into the picture, except perhaps for a rather nebulous reference to compensating for projected increases in traffic volume due to all-lane running - no mention of where they think the extra traffic is going to come from.

And HGVs actually emit more NOx at 50mph than at 56mph, so that's one argument they can't use.
Petrol cars also emit more at 50mph than at 70mph, and, in any case, nearly two orders of magnitude less than HGVs
Diesel cars are an anomaly there, emitting more at 70 than at 50, but still much less than HGVs.
(data source: UK National Atmospheric Emission Inventory)

In any case, for a given traffic volume, not only are there more vehicles per mile of road at lower speeds, but slower vehicles also spend more time on the road for the same journey - further diminishing the case for reduced emissions.

I didn't say the arguments, such as they are, were any good. In fact I'd agree it's basically meaningless waffle. The sort of stuff where somebody produces a lengthy report, relying on the reader looking at the executive summary, and maybe the conclusions very quickly, without giving any critical examination of the content which gave rise to the recommendations. They then support going ahead with the findings on the basis that it's a long report, with scientific equations and all that techy stuff, so they must know what they're talking about.

Essentially, as most respondents observed in the original consultation, the idea is totally bereft of any logical approach, so many holes through which you could drive several black smoke belching buses, side by side. It is a disgrace.

[Engineer792]

I didn't say you did

I agree absolutely that it's a load of meaningless waffle, but I had to make sure - I've been pulled up too many times by someone saying something like, "It's in the small print at the bottom of page 255"

[Trax]

Looks like we agree that it's waffle. I will have to try and give the report a proper read, and leave my Alastair Reynolds for bedtime reading.

At another quick glance, I can see what they anticipate NO2 to be with no mitigation (normal limits after opening) guesstimated over next five years, but not how this exceeds any limit, or what the NO2 readings will be with the mitigation (60mph peak time weekdays).

There is a lot of waffle on other stuff, but not that. The answers to the original result FIF put up, where they answered concerns from the survey, pretty much tries to rubbish every argument against the original 60mph proposal. They have always been going to pit in a reduced limit, no matter what. What I find strange, is that when they didn't get the original one through, they now say only peak time reduction will meet emmissions target, so why didn't they go for that originally?

And Engineer, you say that lorries emit more NO2 at 50mph, I don't think that bothers them, it doesn't look like reducing NO2 is their aim.

Think Brian needs to write to his MP again, trying to get answers on how the mimic reduces NO2, perhaps someone needs to get their head around the report first though.

[mikeiow]

Well, turns out I fell foul of this last week

10:30am.....CLEAR bright dry day, clear motorway.....60 mph limit...and apparently I slipped up: NIP for doing 69 in a 60 zone.

Having done a SAC last year for a 48 in 40 (on 14th April), I am certain I am lined up for fine and points.
& clearly this is my fault, I am not after sympathy, just empathy - thought I had slowed enough, apparently not.

Does make me mad though: I tweeted Highways England last week to ask
@HighwaysEngland why the 60 limit on M1 S to J28? No roadworks: frustrating ??
Only to get the reply:
This is part of the Air Quality based Speed Limit. Pls call our customer contact centre on 0300 123 5000 for more info
I actually replied with:
You're redefined UK speed limits now? How to hack off lots of motorists in one go. How long will this continue?

Clearly they marked my card and went through the cameras closely

Absolutely infuriating that they hamper motorway driving for this reason. & clearly somewhat annoying to find I am now a habitual offender

thanks for listening!

<update>
So https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/m1-jun... concluded:
"Highways Agency previously consulted on proposals to limit speeds to 60mph between 7am and 7pm seven days a week because of the potential effect of the new scheme on local air quality."

& the later http://assets.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/... report concluded with

"The previous EAR published in February 2014 proposed a 60mph speed limit that would operate between 07:00-19:00 daily in order to mitigate predicted significant adverse impacts on local air quality. The SoS did not accepted this approach as the Government’s preferred option for managing local air quality on this section of the M1 and tasked Highways England to identify other mitigation measures. Speed restriction is to be used only to the extent that is absolutely necessary.
The outcome of this review identified an alternative mitigation, with 60mph speed restrictions for a reduced duration for the morning (AM - 07:00-09:00) and evening (PM - 15:00-18:00) peak weekday periods only"

I'm starting to feel particularly aggrieved: how the hell did they get from those to "we will keep a constant 60mph limit" ??!
B'st@rds!

Edited by mikeiow on Tuesday 25th April 21:09

[Trax]

Sorry to hear that, you could always get Waze on you phone, at least you will know where the cameras are. They are easy to see in daylight, but not so much on an evening - plus it will remind you of your speed via gps, as opposed to speedo.

[JNW1]

mikeiow said:

I'm starting to feel particularly aggrieved: how the hell did they get from those to "we will keep a constant 60mph limit" ??!

Edited by mikeiow on Tuesday 25th April 21:09

Really quite disgraceful the way this new reduced speed limit has been implemented; no real justification but we'll do it and fine people for exceeding it anyway.

I know there are those on here who claim there's a democratic process by which this sort of thing can be challenged and reversed but frankly without some sort of well organised, well funded and (probably) very well connected pressure group these "initiatives" become accepted by default (as has been the case with speed cameras generally). Going back a number of years organisations like the AA and RAC used to fight the corner for the motorist but sadly those days appear to be long gone and without any organised voice the sort of thing that's happened on the M1 in South Yorkshire will just continue to be foisted upon us...

[MikeGoodwin]

I'm amazed people don't get assassinated in this country for doing things like this

[mikeiow]

MikeGoodwin said:

I'm amazed people don't get assassinated in this country for doing things like this

Perhaps a bit harsh, but I understand the sentiment!

Now I am wondering whether my offence (which fell before the new guidelines - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39686894) will be the £100 plus 3 points or whether they will look to throw the book at me, evil recidivist that I clearly am.

[turbojay555]

mikeiow said:

Now I am wondering whether my offence (which fell before the new guidelines - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39686894) will be the £100 plus 3 points or whether they will look to throw the book at me, evil recidivist that I clearly am.

Nothing's changed unless it goes to court so will still be 3 points and £100.

[xjay1337]

JNW1 said:

mikeiow said:

I'm starting to feel particularly aggrieved: how the hell did they get from those to "we will keep a constant 60mph limit" ??!

Edited by mikeiow on Tuesday 25th April 21:09

Really quite disgraceful the way this new reduced speed limit has been implemented; no real justification but we'll do it and fine people for exceeding it anyway.

I know there are those on here who claim there's a democratic process by which this sort of thing can be challenged and reversed but frankly without some sort of well organised, well funded and (probably) very well connected pressure group these "initiatives" become accepted by default (as has been the case with speed cameras generally). Going back a number of years organisations like the AA and RAC used to fight the corner for the motorist but sadly those days appear to be long gone and without any organised voice the sort of thing that's happened on the M1 in South Yorkshire will just continue to be foisted upon us...

No peer group or politician in their right might would campaign to INCREASE speed limits, especially where they are claiming it's for air quality reasons.
It would be suicide politically.
It will take a group of "normal" people (eg us lot) to campaign.
Maybe if we get 10,000 people to blat up and down at 70 and get fines and refuse to pay...

[Trax]

JNW1 said:

Really quite disgraceful the way this new reduced speed limit has been implemented; no real justification but we'll do it and fine people for exceeding it anyway.

I know there are those on here who claim there's a democratic process by which this sort of thing can be challenged and reversed but frankly without some sort of well organised, well funded and (probably) very well connected pressure group these "initiatives" become accepted by default (as has been the case with speed cameras generally). Going back a number of years organisations like the AA and RAC used to fight the corner for the motorist but sadly those days appear to be long gone and without any organised voice the sort of thing that's happened on the M1 in South Yorkshire will just continue to be foisted upon us...

Reading the reports, the original proposal had a consultation period, and questionnaires could be sent in, which were answered in the findings, but the Government stopped it in the end; they pretty much rubbished everyone's valid arguments against. There was even a post here about it, with a link to the questionnaire, so likely most of the replies were from here... It was also in the press at the time.

The new consultation seems to have been concluded quietly, with no one knowing about it. Obviously you could find it if looking, but only if you knew to look. It does say, that after its findings, 6 weeks were allowed for objections, of which there were none. So, slam dunk, without any challenge.

[FiF]

Having been one of the original respondents to the consultation, it shouldn't be too much to expect a notification about an updated consultation, but nope, nothing. Considering that previous objectors included eg the police, it seems very strange that nobody had anything to say about this.

Plus if all the previous respondents were so wrong why did they drop it like a hot potato?

[Trax]

FiF said:

Plus if all the previous respondents were so wrong why did they drop it like a hot potato?

It appears to me that they didn't have a choice, it was the Government who thought that it was unacceptable 7 - 7pm 7 days a week, and asked them to come back with alternatives.

So surprisingly, they decided that the new scheme as introduced now, met the same targets on emissions, so I guess they fudged the figures to fit a different reduction in speed.

Also, this consultation did not appear to require Government appraisal or agreement, and yes you would have thought they would have liked the original respondents thoughts on the matter, especially the police, who were originally against it. I am sure I responded, but cannot remember.