Eco towns to have 15mphspeed limit

[SnowBear]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7311548.stm

Ummm, very economical, all chug along at 15mph, most cars do not run very efficiently at all at that speed. They say its designed for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists, even then how does supplies get in, lorries, vans etc, those doing 15mph wont be very efficient either, and buses. A brilliantly well thought out plan...not.

[laserguy]

I can just see lines of traffic,bumper to bumper kangarooing along at high revs stuck in first gear with very brief and occasional forays into second. Green...not. Daft...yes.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Last time I checked I believe the ideal fuel efficiency of a car (on average across all makes and models) peaks at around 56 mph.

I doubt they'd ever post that as a speed limit! Still, the 15mph limit is a perfect example of using a "Green Agenda" to push through a completely unconnected policy.

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

Having seen various Government papers on traffic speed policy, there does tend to be a lot of focus only on the negative aspects of speed, and ignorance of the positive aspects (safety comes first so nothing else comes into it, etc, etc)

Also, speed policy is clouded by the agenda of trying to make life difficult for motorists; lower speed limits are popular among environmental proposals because they take the fun and convenience out of driving.

Lower speed limits do not help the environment if they cause people to be taking twice as long to negotiate their journeys, therefore increasing congestion. Also, it's often argued that low limits would reduce noise pollution, but remember that a car travelling at 15mph takes twice as long to pass by as a car travelling at 30mph. Also, as reflected in Captain Bobski's post above, fuel tanks will be much less efficient at 15mph than at 30mph.

[Devonian]

I think most people are missing the point.

A quote from the report: "Ms Flint has said she wants to see towns designed around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.".

So, isn't it about these being towns not totally dominated by cars? I really don't see why we can't have just a few towns like that? Why is it so risible to try building a few such towns to see if people like such car free environments?

[SnowBear]

I think most people are missing the point.

A quote from the report: "Ms Flint has said she wants to see towns designed around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.".

So, isn't it about these being towns not totally dominated by cars? I really don't see why we can't have just a few towns like that? Why is it so risible to try building a few such towns to see if people like such car free environments?

Because in practice it wont work and gives the wrong impression that everything chugging along at 15mph is efficient and "green". The people who lived there would have to have work, work means industry, industry means transport and services, how would they get on at 15mph? Would you have lorries which are delivering to nearby shops, schools and amenities crawling by at 15mph? Or would those companies providing such services, industry and work have to change to say electric or other such means of transport thus pushing up the cost of said services and provisions because of double handling?

Government sources say the new town centres are to be car-free, and the 15mph limit will be enforced on "key roads" leading into them.

A recipe for a ghost town there and those that do live there the cost of living high due to the awkwardness and extra costs involved in getting gooods and services into the town. I do see another way, residential areas yes, make them a 20mph zone, the town centres a car free zone as many town centres are now, but the trunk roads in and out, and the other main roads around have to be a minimum of 30-40mph imo.

[Devonian]

Because in practice it wont work and gives the wrong impression that everything chugging along at 15mph is efficient and "green". The people who lived there would have to have work, work means industry, industry means transport and services, how would they get on at 15mph? Would you have lorries which are delivering to nearby shops, schools and amenities crawling by at 15mph? Or would those companies providing such services, industry and work have to change to say electric or other such means of transport thus pushing up the cost of said services and provisions because of double handling?

Again I think you might be missing the point of what might be tried. And, you know it wont work before it's even tried ? I don't.

Afaics it's not about cars doing 15mph it's about the emphasis for transport being away from cars in a few towns set up like that. Can't we even try that? Are we sooo da*n wedded to cars we can't even comprehend trying a couple or few towns where they don't completely dominate the place, but instead other modes of transport are tried? I mean, can't we try that experiment?

Edited March 25, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

56mph? surely the fuel efficiency is tied in with the RPM and you'll be doing 15mph at the same rev range in second as 56mph in top gear.........

Until the national speed limits are altered any speed sign below 30mph in a built up area is an advisory and not a limit (though the sign may look like and order). If you don't believe me then check out the relevant laws.

We, here in Hebden, have 20mph limits through the town and upland villages. Sadly we have a mass of litigious leeches in the big houses on the tops (from the M/cr/Leeds Law firms) and they have made it quite plain where we 'legally' stand insofar as what speed we must drive at...........

Edited March 25, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[SnowBear]

Of course we can try to have car free and 15mph trunk roads into and out of a town, but will it work in reality? How much money will go into this only for it to become a ghost town because the restrictions are so harsh? At what cost would it be to the local community in regard to supplies and the cost of trying to get maintenance done or alterations to properties? Any centre of community though must have an efficient and workable supply route. If they want to do this properly then they ban cars, but the supply route cannot imo be restricted to 15mph, and especially not on the back of it being "green".

The most economical speed for a car is 56mph, its the rpm/gearing ratio that makes the difference.

At low speed, say 2000rpm engine to do 300rpm road wheel, a lot of effort to do small work.

At higher gear that same 2000rpm will do say 800rpm, more closely matching the speed of the engine for same amount of effort, momentum helps the engine to run, less effort for the exhaust cycle, gases flow best.

Once we go higher wind resistance, road resistance and gear ratios then makes the efficiency drop, and over 70mph its by a big amount.

With regard to the 20mph limits used locally in some areas now GW, I thought that if its a bylaw, its legal?

[Admiral_Bobski]

56mph? surely the fuel efficiency is tied in with the RPM and you'll be doing 15mph at the same rev range in second as 56mph in top gear.........

Fuel efficiency is tied to the distance you travel. If you pootle along at 15mph at, say, 2000RPM in 2nd gear for 20 minutes then you'll travel about 5 miles. If you speed along at 60mph at 2000RPM in 5th gear for 20 minutes then you will travel 20 miles. You might use the same amount of fuel in each case but at the higher speed you'll go four times further! Surely the more miles you can squeeze out of your fuel the better it is for the environment?

CB

EDIT - Oops! Sorry, Snowbear - that'll teach me to reply to a post without reading the ones after it!

Edited March 25, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Filski]

Hmmm... I don't want to say too much but I'm involved with delivering one of these villages. Yes, you have valid concerns about the fuel efficiency of travelling at that speed but then the policy has nothing to do with that. It's about creating a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists and making people think twice about using their cars. Let's face it, most can ride a bike at 15mph. It's a lot quicker to jump on your bike and nip a short distance up to the shop on an efficient network that favours bikes and than it is to jump in your car, park, etc. I can't speak for other schemes but ours has services and delivery requirments kept to the edge to minimise their requirment to enter the scheme.

There's a whole lot of negativity coming from the skeptics without a great deal of thought. Why?

[SnowBear]

As I read it from that BBC article the policy is made around the issues of carbon emissions etc and promoting a 15mph zone is not environmentally friendly in my view, its giving people the wrong message that running a vehicle at slow speeds is better for the environment. Do you really think it will make people use a push bike for school trips or such in the winter? Maybe on sunny days they will but rain? they will use their car regardless and crawl along making more pollution than would normally be produced due to the slow speeds and inefficient running of their cars.

[Admiral_Bobski]

There's a whole lot of negativity coming from the skeptics without a great deal of thought. Why?

I have no particular gripe or issue with so-called "Eco-Towns". If they can truly make zero carbon towns (or near-zero) and run them at sensible costs then what is there to be negative about. The title of this thread, however, makes particular issue of the 15mph speed limit, with which I do take issue. It seems to me that they should either specifically make the point that running a car at 15mph is actually detrimental to the environment (but safer for cyclists and pedestrians), and so you have a choice as to whether or not to drive in such towns, or they should ban cars entirely from these towns, rather than feline-footing about the issue.

As Snowbear says, by enforcing a 15mph speed limit they are sending out the message that this is a more environmentally-friendly way of running your car. After all, it specifically says in the article, "The restriction is among proposals designed to minimise the environmental impact of the settlements."

CB

Edited March 25, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Filski]

Regardless of what impression you have, the policy is not aimed directly at reducing CO2 emissions by cutting speed. It's to make the use of cars a less attactive option compared to other options that don't consume CO2, or much less per person such as public transport.

It's not a perfect solution but neither is running a car on fossil fuels in the first place.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am all for the core idea of bringing about a more balanced transport system, rather than one which sees car use escalating at the expense of everything else. I am also in favour of having a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

I am, however, against the idea of achieving it through blanket speed limit reductions, because if it does work, it will work through bringing motorists down to the lowest common denominator, the philosophy being that if people are put off driving to enough extent they might jump ship to the alternatives. Then, hoping that the fewer cars might bring benefits to the users of alternatives. Similarly, blanket speed limit reductions is the way to improve safety that causes the maximum inconvenience to motorists and maximises the punishment of the many because of the few. A solution to two complex problems that is, as in the quote in my sig, "simple, neat and wrong".

What we need to be doing is looking for ways to aim for a balanced transport system by bringing cyclists and pedestrians up towards motorists' level rather than the other way around. Similarly, improving safety in ways that don't involve blanket restrictions on the entire motoring public because of the bad driving of a contingent of idiots.

You might say "but it's not about mass speed limit reductions, it's about having a few eco-towns". But the point is, if it's seen to be effective in those towns, it will be applied elsewhere.

The authorities tell us that the main agenda behind lower speed limits is safety, or more fuel efficiency, but I don't think it is. It's about bringing in the stick to discourage car use.

[Filski]

CB, fair points. Maybe I understand the concept and am not sufficiently removed enough but I don't see how the article actually says that, implicitly or otherwise. I think people have jumped to conclusions.

All I can say is that many people seem to have the wrong and overly negative opion of this policy. It is a positive thing. It'll be physically impossible to drive faster than 15mph safely for the most part because the speed limit will be designed in with obstacles that favour pedestrians so your arguments are mostly moot anyway (see homezones). There will be examples where a limit will be need to be enforced but again I cannot see why this is a negative as long as the alternative is easier.

Besides, those bad eggs that resent driving slowly are least likely to live there anyway

[SnowBear]

Why the name calling? (Bad eggs), cant see anywhere I have resorted to name calling in my posts above.

I am not against low speeds for residential areas but amenities and commerce in each town needs a good supply route, and that article clearly says the approaches would be 15mph as well, which means trucks running along at 15mph belching more pollution than would normally be, not very green at all. It gives the wrong impression that low speeds gives low pollution.

and the 15mph limit will be enforced on "key roads" leading into them.

Edited March 25, 2008 by SnowBear

[Filski]

It's a reference to the problem drivers in the post above. It's not aimed at anyone here.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Regardless of what impression you have, the policy is not aimed directly at reducing CO2 emissions by cutting speed. It's to make the use of cars a less attactive option compared to other options that don't consume CO2, or much less per person such as public transport.

Like bus lanes

Mind you, the congestion charge reduced traffic volumes in London. Didnt it

[Thundery wintry showers]

I cannot see why this is a negative as long as the alternative is easier.

The negatives are that it works by bringing motorists down to a denominator, and as SnowBear et al. are pointing out, this will have major detrimental impacts on businesses, via slow transport of goods etc. Yes, it might be that the alternatives become as viable as road transport for transporting goods- but that's only because road transport has been forced down to a common denominator with the alternatives.

It is only a definite positive policy if you are working from the premise "the adverse effects on motorists, and associated consequences, shouldn't come into it", and ignoring certain factors, no matter how large or small, leads to a biased conclusion.

[Gray-Wolf]

I probably straddle the 'cars for the rich' to the 'cars for all' period and so remember streets that you could play footie in (and halt for the odd car) and the parked up , single track roads that they are now.

Like eating meat each day, a car is not an emblem of your social position. The sooner folk understand their own behaviours (at root), the better.

[Filski]

TWS - we are not talking about warehouse and articulated lorry deliveries here. At most it'll be high street type areas which can only benefit from a slower speed environment. Even that will be limited since the vast majority of that which will be affected is residential.

I'm not going to get into a lowest denominator argument, because I see the great equaliser as a child riding a bike. Can you suggest how to bring that up to the level of a car?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I've only skim-read this thread, but it seems to me that lots of people are forming a view from the motorists' point of view whilst forgetting that as soon as you get out of your car (and everyone does) you're a pedestrian and would benefit from a far more pleasant environment.

[Gray-Wolf]

We've recently had swathes of the town turned into pedestrian areas (brilliant for all......including Luke in his chair) but the stink caused by the the lazy bleeders who didn't wish to walk 200m to facillitate the changes was incredible..........sad the majority is becoming ever more 'I ,me, mine' selfish......

I've only skim-read this thread, but it seems to me that lots of people are forming a view from the motorists' point of view whilst forgetting that as soon as you get out of your car (and everyone does) you're a pedestrian and would benefit from a far more pleasant environment.

I do loathe agreeing with Oon.......

Edited March 25, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[eddie]

I don't have any particular objection to lower speed limits in towns but 15mph is a stupid limit. Even cyclists would be breaking that on a regular basis. 20mph is more realistic and allows people to pass slower cyclists without having to break the law.