Badly maintained motorway lighting

[JamesWindle]

Does anyone know why some motorway lighting is so badly maintained?
There are lots of failed columns as well as gantry sign lighting on the M11 around Stansted and the M25/M40 junction isn’t much better.

[Big L]

Budgets cut to (beyond) the bone?

[Bryn666]

Those maintenance chickens once again...

[the cheesecake man]

To create an excuse to remove it?

[Debaser]

To create an excuse to remove it?

I know you were being sarcastic, but sometimes you have to wonder...

TA 501 Road lighting appraisal

1.1 Appraisals shall be carried out for all new and replacement road lighting on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads including:
1) proposed lighting of a new road;
2) proposed lighting of an existing unlit road, where lighting would be the sole improvement;
3) proposed lighting of an existing lit or unlit road, where lighting would be part of a package of improvements; and
4) proposed renewal of life-expired lighting, where replacement of lighting columns is involved.

NOTE Where existing lighting is to be renewed or upgraded while retaining existing lighting columns in situ, this is regarded as maintenance and an appraisal is not required.

1.2 Where it is considered that a proposed lighting scheme does not warrant the completion of a full lighting appraisal due to its small scale then agreement shall be sought from the Overseeing Organisation

2. Lighting appraisal process
2.1 The lighting appraisal shall assess the need for lighting, and evaluate the impact of providing (or removing) lighting, along with the associated costs and safety implications.
2.2 The lighting appraisal process shall include the following seven steps:
1) information gathering;
2) concept lighting design;
3) determine works and operating costs;
4) road safety engineer report;
5) scheme appraisal report (SAR);
6) non – quantifiable impacts;
7) findings report.

Determination of personal injury collision (PIC) savings
6.2 The road safety engineer shall determine the percentage darkness personal injury collision (PIC) savings due to road lighting for the type of road, based on the most recent national statistics detailed within the RCGB

Darkness PIC saving for renewing lighting on a lit link / junction
6.12 The forecast number of darkness PICs for the opening year shall be taken to be the same as the average for the immediately preceding five years, assuming road lighting remains in place.
6.13 In the absence of five years' data, the minimum period to be assessed for the number of darkness PICs shall be three years.
6.14 The PICs shall be rationalised to exclude any where DGN was a significant contributory factor.
6.15 The predicted PIC saving shall be calculated by multiplying the number of opening year darkness PICs by Equation 6.15, where A is the appropriate percentage determined by the road safety engineer.

Equation 6.15 (Predicted PIC Savings)
A
100% − A

7. Scheme appraisal report (SAR)
7.1 As part of the lighting appraisal process, the Overseeing Organisation's SAR shall be used to determine the monetary benefit of the proposed lighting scheme through the calculation of the benefit cost ratio (BCR).

Benefits cost ratio (BCR)
Motorway incorporating variable mandatory speed limits
7.2 For road lighting schemes on motorways incorporating variable mandatory speed limits there shall be a positive BCR >=2.
All other motorways, all purpose trunk roads (APTR) and dual carriageways
7.3 For all motorways, APTRs and dual carriageways not incorporating variable mandatory speed limits there shall be a positive BCR >=1.

NOTE Appendix D, Fig D.1 provides an example of a BCR calculation for appraisal of road lighting.

7.4 Road lighting shall be treated as being an improvement scheme in its own right and be appraised independently where part of a multi disciplinary improvement scheme.

There is no real like-for-like process anymore, and since the downward re-evaluation of the number of personal injury collisions actually saved by illuminating a stretch of road, I'd be surprised if many schemes can now pass the BCR test, as low as it is, particularly when removed from the overall scheme BCR calculation as para 7.4 indicates.

[the cheesecake man]

There is no real like-for-like process anymore, and since the downward re-evaluation of the number of personal injury collisions actually saved by illuminating a stretch of road, I'd be surprised if many schemes can now pass the BCR test, as low as it is, particularly when removed from the overall scheme BCR calculation as para 7.4 indicates.

Mmm. Good find. While public spending should certainly be monitored and assessed, this appears a bit perverse and creates incentives to leave it to deteriorate rather than replace individual columns or components when needed. That can't be a good attitude. It's a bit like thinking "I won't bother replacing this bald tyre because if I wait another 1000 miles the exhaust will drop off as well and the car might start rusting then I justify scrapping it." If lighting isn't needed, it should be removed now. If it is needed, it should be maintained properly. Routine maintenance shouldn't be distorting the decision.

[Brenley Corner]

Back in May, I corresponded with National Highways about the state of the lighting on the M20 between J5 & J7 (where only 1 in 30 columns works). This lighting is original to the widening and building of the C/D lanes in the 1990s. I was told that the M20 lighting was due for replacement in 2029/2030 (although they hoped to pull it forwards). My contention is this - if the lighting mostly doesn't work and traffic has been coping OK without it why not just turn it off completely and permanently rather than have haphazard pools of light here and there.

I also raised the state of the lighting on the M2 between 1 & 4 and the A2 between Brenley Corner and Canterbury. They responded that in these cases it was being dealt with through routine maintenance and besides, they assured me, their LED replacement programme would be in the area within a couple of years.

I note that at the M2 J5 Improvement Scheme where new permanent columns are being planted they are extending far further up the slip roads (old and new) than they did before.

[StockburyRoundabout]

My contention is this - if the lighting mostly doesn't work and traffic has been coping OK without it why not just turn it off completely and permanently rather than have haphazard pools of light here and there.

There are certainly places that appear to be coping alright without lighting and it would probably make sense to remove if there isn't the willingness to turn them back on or repair them any time soon, case in point the M20 around Sandling and Aylesford.

I will briefly touch on this as it isn't the subject of this thread as it is potentially not through poor maintenance, but stretches of the M25 through Surrey with the streetlighting off don't appear to have had a negative impact on things.

[MotorwayGuy]

This was posted on Facebook last week. I'm interested to know what SOX lighting they are referring to as I'm not aware of any being present on the M2/A2 here for at least 20 years. HE in Kent install lighting columns as part of widening/improvement works and then just leave them to rot.

[Brenley Corner]

I found this hidden away on the maintenance scheme pages on National Highways website regards lighting on parts of the M25. Some of the lighting will be permanently turned off rather than being replaced - 13 miles in total

We recently switched off some sections of life-expired street lighting around the M25 network as part of our work towards achieving National Highways’ net zero targets.

This includes some sections of street lighting in the following areas:

10.4 miles between junctions 6 and 9
2 miles between junction 21a to 23
4 miles between junction 29 to 30
Switching off these lights is estimated to save around 676,800 kgCO2e; the equivalent of taking over 400 cars off the road a year or the energy use of 85.3 homes over one year. Some areas, such as around junctions and slip roads, will remain lit and continue to be maintained. This will allow motorists to adjust between the different lighting levels on the M25 main carriageway and local road networks.

We carried out a thorough safety review prior to switching off the lighting in these sections. The lighting columns will remain in place for up to two years while we undertake further post switch-off safety reviews and signs are currently in place to indicate to motorists where sections of lighting have been switched off.

Our evidence on the M25 network suggests that turning off lighting reduces incidents. This not only supports the government's Net Zero strategy, but also benefits the environment, helping wildlife and reducing light pollution.

[Bryn666]

Switching lighting off reduces incidents? Are they now claiming that lighting causes incidents?

It's not long ago certain representatives of my least favourite "highways" organisation were saying that unlit motorways were unsafe for 65 year olds. So what is it? What they really mean is maintaining lighting costs them money and they're not willing to spend it. You need the electrical supply anyway for all the comms equipment so it's a bit fallacious to pass this off as a saving on electricity.

[Chris5156]

Switching lighting off reduces incidents? Are they now claiming that lighting causes incidents?

Yes, that's quite a striking claim.

You could, if you had the statistics to back it up and you were good at keeping a straight face, say that you'd found evidence of unlit motorways that had a better safety record than equivalent lit motorways, and I could believe that you might find examples of that. You could even use evidence like that to make a case that the removal of lighting was justifiable because the safety benefits of lighting a motorway were not clear cut and the safety disbenefit of removing it was therefore negligible. What I can't see that you could ever do is say, flat out, that removing lighting from a motorway will make it safer.

[jnty]

Switching lighting off reduces incidents? Are they now claiming that lighting causes incidents?

Yes, that's quite a striking claim.

You could, if you had the statistics to back it up and you were good at keeping a straight face, say that you'd found evidence of unlit motorways that had a better safety record than equivalent lit motorways, and I could believe that you might find examples of that. You could even use evidence like that to make a case that the removal of lighting was justifiable because the safety benefits of lighting a motorway were not clear cut and the safety disbenefit of removing it was therefore negligible. What I can't see that you could ever do is say, flat out, that removing lighting from a motorway will make it safer.

I share your scepticism, but I can think of two genuine possibilities that might make this true. The first would be that headlights are better/different now, and intermittent lighting on motorways creates some kind of confusion with shadows etc where people drive at unsafe distances or find it hard to gauge what other cars are doing. The other alternative is that, like eg. wider carriageways, it increases drivers' perception of safety and average speeds and so increases the average severity (if not the likelihood) of accidents.

[Bryn666]

They may be referring to people colliding with streetlight columns as a significant hazard, but given most of the M25 lighting is behind barriers anyway I can't see it.

[Chris5156]

Switching lighting off reduces incidents? Are they now claiming that lighting causes incidents?

Yes, that's quite a striking claim.

You could, if you had the statistics to back it up and you were good at keeping a straight face, say that you'd found evidence of unlit motorways that had a better safety record than equivalent lit motorways, and I could believe that you might find examples of that. You could even use evidence like that to make a case that the removal of lighting was justifiable because the safety benefits of lighting a motorway were not clear cut and the safety disbenefit of removing it was therefore negligible. What I can't see that you could ever do is say, flat out, that removing lighting from a motorway will make it safer.

I share your scepticism, but I can think of two genuine possibilities that might make this true. The first would be that headlights are better/different now, and intermittent lighting on motorways creates some kind of confusion with shadows etc where people drive at unsafe distances or find it hard to gauge what other cars are doing. The other alternative is that, like eg. wider carriageways, it increases drivers' perception of safety and average speeds and so increases the average severity (if not the likelihood) of accidents.

They may be referring to people colliding with streetlight columns as a significant hazard, but given most of the M25 lighting is behind barriers anyway I can't see it.

I can see the logic in both of those, but I think we can all agree it remains a very bold claim!

[jnty]

They may be referring to people colliding with streetlight columns as a significant hazard, but given most of the M25 lighting is behind barriers anyway I can't see it.

In my experience, walking into a streetlight that is switched off is just as painful as walking into one that's switched on, so I imagine the same is true for cars

[AndyB]

The argument could be that drivers might be taking the lighting for granted, where more isolated lighting might get them to pay more attention to their surroundings.

[multiraider2]

Went along the M25 clockwise from Junction 28 a week ago. Was after dark. My son (who wouldn't normally notice these things) said, "What's wrong with the motorway?" I only twigged then that it was in dark after J29 and it has only been between J3 and J4 (that he sees) that has been such previously. I wondered if the lighting was on temporary shutoff and I suggested to him at the time it might be to save electricity/make for darker skies. But that document now suggests it's going to be permanent.