For the A10 around A'dam, it is a ~6 km stretch that is going from 80 kph to 100 kph. Total time saved per car: ~1 minute. Not really that much of a time saving.

It would be nice to know what the noise change is expected to be, and the increase in fuel use.

@H. Yes your petrol consumption on 2l Petrol engine will go up from 7.4 to 8.3L/100km, so on your 6km stretch you are about to spend 9 eurocents more. but if you would actually drive a car, you would know that traffic flow at 79 is far more clumsy than at 99 and congestion possibilities should also reduce given how many cars/minute can pass by at increased speed.

Very good initiative.
Safety will be improved as well (i.e. less jam, less trucks overtaking, more relaxed driving without having to stare at our speed all the time, etc.).

Only politicians have the extraordinary ability to turn back the clocks on progress. Influenced by mysterious forces that run unseen beneath civilians feet. Mostly to do with votes and power. Nothing what so ever to do with bettering the planet, just their personal status. Sad and unchanging.

Hi,
Driving many times from Switzerland to The Nederland’s and back the slowest part of the drive is in Holland. In the middle of the night waiting at a red light with a camera when no other person is in sight. The traffic light sequence, few roundabouts and illogical speed limits. To drive 100 mph from one red light to another makes no sense. The simple calculation of speed limits by flow analysis and the time take from one red light to another and use more roundabout and intelligent traffic lights.

Using the 1 min saving example above, that's 2 mins a day (each way), 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year = about 8 hours more I can spend with m family instead of in a car. I'll take it!

@Terence Hale, there are no traffic cameras on highways.

Usually these changes are brought about to highlight time savings. 1 minute on a >15 minute trip isn't significant, as it would be lost due to various other factors, e.g. stopped at red lights. I was curious to know the stats on the full impact as well (noise, fuel consumption, etc) before forming an opinion.

I'm not so sure congestion would be reduced significantly as traffic always slows down as the density increases and then bunches up. The real source of congestion.

That said, I'd welcome driving around A'dam that much faster, but more for the psychological treat of just moving faster to the destination, irrespective of the actual time savings. For convenience, I tend to use the cruise control.

The high speed limits in Germany make that much larger country seem smaller than it really is.
If we reduced the highway speed limits in the NL to 30, people would think that we are as large as Germany.

It's about time! The statistics showed that the eighty speed limit wasn't doing much in helping with pollution, gas consumption or traffic congestion. What it was doing, though, was adding to the city coffers with all the speed cameras they had lined up along that A10 stretch of freeway.

Since when driving faster is "receding the clock of progress"???

Speed limits should be set at what is reasonably safe for a given road.

It might seem a little the 3.8 extra minutes daily, but multiply that for the approximately 220.000 cars that travel on the A'dam Ring daily (though not all at maximum speed I concede).

If someone is bothered, just stay in the right lane with the trucks travelling at 70-80. Problem solved.

@Charlotte Lyon: I think it is a good think when politicians are concerned with voters, after all, it is the voters who put them in their positions and pay their bills ultimately!