You are not currently logged in.
Thursday, February 09 2012

New M-way limits to cut congestion and noise

M20Variable speed limits will soon be imposed on the M20 in a bid to cut congestion and carbon emissions.

The Highways Agency this week revealed it is pushing ahead with plans to impose the limits between junction 4 (Leybourne) and junction 7 (Detling).

Once the scheme is in place, motorists have to check electronic signs above the motorway lanes for the speed limit - which will still be a maximum of 70mph.

It will be enforced with speed cameras. A similar scheme is already used in some parts of the M25.

The area was chosen because "Maidstone has suffered from peak-time congestion problems for some considerable time", the report said.

Motorists were consulted on the plan through the Highways Agency website last year. Just 73 people responded, with 41 of them in favour.

Of those against, most expressed concern that variable limits do not work on the M25 and that the scheme would need increased police patrols to work.

Others suggested that money should be invested to control foreign vehicles on the M20 instead.

But variable speed limits have been backed by Maidstone council, Tonbridge and Malling council, and KCC. Supporters of the scheme said the main benefit would be reduced noise.

A Highways Agency spokesman said: "Controlled motorways are designed to smooth traffic flows and make journeys more reliable by reducing the stop-start effect of traffic during busy periods.

"A controlled motorway also has a positive impact on the surrounding area by reducing noise and air pollution from the road.

"The M20 Junction 4-7 controlled motorway scheme went to public consultation last summer. The response to the consultation was largely positive, so we are taking the scheme to the next stage.

"We will make an announcement in due course."

Monday, March 08 2010

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (8)

Comments closed

  • Shaun L wrote:

    Type of sign used

    Having driven through the controlled area and seen some of the signs in operation I am not sure that they comply with the law as far as setting a maximum speed. Mandatory road speed signs should have a speed limit surrounded by a red circle (as seen on the M25). The signs I have seen so far on the M20 are all white. The signs I have seen look like large circular Matrix signs, the highway code lists the matrix speed signs as "temporary maximum speed advised" - not a mandatory speed limit. As far as the consultation is concerned, I never heard about it either and would have said NO! What idiot would install all this equipment before an enquiry is called for unless they intended for the enquiry to be a sham or hidden so the outcome was in favor of the speed cameras. Makes you wonder who these 41 people were and who they worked for! Also, if the government wants to wave the "Green Flag" it needs to look at the congestion that it causes on a daily basis at the Dartford crossing, yet another instance where we were promised that the toll would go once the crossing was paid for! Maybe we need to sack all of these clowns and elect a party that has some integrity and honesty about it. (If anybody knows of one, -do the country a favor and let us know where to find them!)

    16 Mar 2010 4:54 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Jim Yarwood wrote:

    Speed cameras on M20

    From memory, the reason stated last year as to why the cameras weren't switched on was because it had to go before Parliament to have the law changed. Have to agree that it was a 'done' deal before any consultation. Even if the alleged majority was in favour of no speed limit cameras with the amount of money invested the cameras would most definately not be removed. A good point by Ian 18:56 how will drivers know if there is a valid reason for the speed limits staying in force, and have to agree countless times I've been on the motorway with the gantries flashing max speed limits with absolutely no problem whatsoever, yep, another revenue-earner, not that it would ever be confirmed.

    09 Mar 2010 7:50 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Marilyn wrote:

    Consultation

    Am I the only person in England who is sick and tired of being bullied and lied to by the 'authorities' .... why don't they just admit they are going to do anything they can to squeeze every penny they can out of the motorist to help fill the finacncial hole they have created by their own incompetence.
    There is no justification for more speed cameras and there certainly wasn't any consultation - it is just plain money grabbing!!!

    09 Mar 2010 11:47 AM

    Report Abuse

  • SB wrote:

    Stop!

    The government want us all on foot or on bikes. It'll probably be quicker than car soon! Why are carbon emissions used as an excuse for everything these days too? Just another example of Kent slowing down. The amount of changes in speed restictions on rural routes recently is also ridiculous. eg. Teston, Staplehurst etc.

    08 Mar 2010 8:17 PM

    Report Abuse

  • ian wrote:

    M20 variable speed limits

    Methinks Gavin at 15.58 is right about it being a done deal. These cameras were installed months ago and were to be switched on by a particular date. Road signs were erected advising motorists about them being in place and I am sure from memory that there was a report in the KM last year advising the public of the date they would go live. Suddenly the warning signs were painted over and now we learn there has been a so-called public consultation. I would bet that everything was in place and the cameras were about to be switched on when they realised there had not been a public consultation so one was hurridly arranged. I remember last year the overhead signs where the cameras are telling drivers that testing was being carried out, i.e. before the consultation period. A whitewash and done deal if ever there was one.

    08 Mar 2010 7:28 PM

    Report Abuse

  • ian wrote:

    M20 variable speed limits

    Likewise, I was not consulted. I did not even know there was a consultation. How was this publicised? My main point however is the ability of the police to collect fines deliberately. How many times have you gone down motorways to see speed restrictions on the electronic signs but there is no reason for them. There may have been some hours ago but the need has passed and the police have forgotten to remove them. In this case with the cameras in place who is to say that they will not be used deliberatley to fine drivers by altering the speed limit for no reason or "forgetting" to remove the speed limit once the need has passed? How can you prove that there was a mistake by the police by not removing the speed limit? They will never admit they made a mistake. We need some kind of audit trail to ensure records of speed limit changes are kept and the reasons therefore and when they should have been removed.

    08 Mar 2010 6:56 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Gavin wrote:

    Consultation---yeah right!

    I replied to the consultation with concerns about the location of the variable speed limit. Reading the "response to consultation" document, nearly each and every question is answered with "previous studies on the M25 have shown"....blahh blahh, blaah! This is the M20, not the M25. Junction layouts are different, traffic flows are certainly different, so why compare? You can also be assured that if 42 had responded against it, 43 would have been in favour, they would have rolled out another out-of-touch councillor to praise the scheme. Call me cynical, but this was a done deal before any consultation was undertaken!

    08 Mar 2010 3:58 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Jeff wrote:

    Consultation

    'Motorists were consulted on the plan through the Highways Agency website last year. Just 73 people responded, with 41 of them in favour.'
    And with 73 people responding, this was obviously a very well publicised consultation!? I for one would have responded if I'd have seen or heard anything about this? How about, as commented, use the money to control the foreign lorrys and the damage they do to the road and probably over half the accidents probably caused by them that cause the delays in the first place?!

    08 Mar 2010 2:25 PM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.