The future of smart motorways

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
ROAD ROVER
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 07:48
Location: London

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by ROAD ROVER » Tue Sep 21, 2021 22:13

booshank wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 23:00
Bendo wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 00:15
booshank wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 18:43


Yeah don't get why average speed cameras are rarely used in England, apart from motorway roadworks. Where they are they are highly effective - almost all vehicles travel at the same speed, traffic is more evenly distributed across lanes to make full use of the road, lane changing is minimised and throughput maximised. I find it a lot less stressful to drive like that in heavy traffic as you can just follow the other vehicles along at an appropriate distance - no sudden braking, lane changes, bunching etc.
My experience is the opposite. Frequently sat behind people doing significantly less than the speed limit with traffic brunching up as a result and people getting frustrated going for marginal undertakes as they know full well they can travel significantly faster.

Average speed cameras would just cause more chaos, not to mention making enforcement more difficult when the limit changes when a car is midway between a pair.
Maybe it's a regional thing? I've only experienced it on the M4 in England in roadworks and in South Wales and it's worked really well in my opinion. But then traffic seems to flow much better on the smart part of the M4 between the M32 and M5 than it did on the M25 between the M3 and M23 when I've been there recently - people keeping to the limit, choosing an appropriate lane and sticking to it etc.
If only that were the case. To very many people the appropriate lane is the one with an empty lane to the left of them & the speed they religiously stick to (despite the queue behind them) is 10mph under the temporary limit which is 5mph by choice plus 5mph speedo inaccuracy.

domcoop
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 22:27
Location: Orrell, Lancashire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by domcoop » Tue Sep 21, 2021 22:23

ais523 wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 20:05
Chris5156 wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 13:26
Stevie D wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 13:07
I'm going to pre-delete my response to this to avoid being banned.
But perhaps I should have said "sociopaths" rather than "antisocial people" to start with, in the interests of accuracy.
I realise this is something about which people genuinely agree, but I don't understand (and have never understood) why it is better if every vehicle queues in one lane with the other empty. There is some weird British idea about queue jumping at play that is completely counterproductive.

If there are two lanes, people should queue in them both until the point where the road is narrowed to one, and at that point they should merge in turn. Not just because that is a more efficient way to combine two lanes of traffic (but it is, and that's reason enough), but also because it is more equitable. There is no scope to push past a queue if there is no empty lane there, so everyone then queues for the same length of time and everyone gets through when it's their turn. It also causes the overall length of the queue to be shorter, making it less likely to block junctions further back. I don't see what's sociopathic about that.

Or, to be more provocative about it... When there are two lanes open to traffic and one has a queue in it, why should the people who have chosen to sit in that queue be angry and indignant if other people choose the other lane? If you've chosen to sit in a queue when you could be moving, don't be angry at me, that's your choice! :paperbag:
Something that I've seen on multiple occasions recently is an advisory closure of three lanes on a four-lane motorway (typically due to a mandatory closure of those lanes a mile or so later).

What happens in practice is that most of the drivers pile into the lane that isn't closing, while a minority use the lanes that are advisorily closed, and move into the open lane only when forced to by the mandatory closure (red Xs or even actual cones). This then holds up the traffic for the majority, as the minority look for opportunities to merge in, and causes the motorway to come to a standstill for no obvious reason.

This seems like a situation that could be fixed by using a different sequence of signs, e.g. mandatorily closing two of four lanes earlier, and not warning about the remaining lane merging until just before the lane actually closes. "This lane is about to close" warnings seem to produce the opposite effect from the expected one when the warning is given too far back, because drivers are inconsistent about how quickly they think that means they have to leave the lane.
Quite. I think there are two situations here. There is a known reduction of lane situation (e.g. A9, A303) which can be and ought to be indicated by the "Use both lanes" / "Merge in turn" signs. Even better if the lane reductions are marked like here, A589 Lancaster where it shows both lanes stopping and narrowing to one (as opposed to the right-hand lane merging into the left-hand lane, which gives the impression one lane has priority).

However the current Smart Motorway signals are different. They start with the arrow sign over the closed lane, which according to the highway code means "Change lane". The MS4s have the wicket sign indicating lane closed ahead. And then at the point of closure is the "red X".

Now I had a quick look on Highways England and the Highway Code, and interestingly there's no mention at all about "change lane" or "lane closed ahead". They only seem bothered about driving the message home to the hard of thinking about what the red X means.

But my interpretation is that "change lane", means you change lane when you can, i.e. now. It doesn't mean carry on using lane and merge in turn underneath the gantry at the red X sign / carry on using lane past red 'X' if you're in a BMW and can't be bothered waiting. So if this is what Highways Whoever They Are This Week intend, there needs to be different signs to indicate that. And of course the whole point of the mandatory speed limit enforcement is to slow the traffic down to stop waves of bunching leading to stop-start traffic. However, Audis deciding to pull in at the last minute because they're "using the available road space" are what cause bunching, as the slow moving traffic in the queue then has to come to a complete stop to let the other driver in.
Dominic

Bomag
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bomag » Tue Sep 21, 2021 23:02

booshank wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 18:43
thatapanydude wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:45
Owain wrote:
Tue Aug 31, 2021 16:18
Which reminds me of a strange and potentially dangerous experience on the M1 last week:

- Signage came on imposing 40 limit.
- Signage also closed lanes 1 and 2, causing traffic to move over to 3 and 4. I moved to lane 3 and got caught behind a car that was doing a bit less than 40.

Traffic was light. After cruising along like this for some time, with just one or two cars passing us in lane 4, I noticed a tsunami of vehicles approaching at speed across all of the lanes behind us. One van even dived from lane 3 into lane 1 and undertook both me and the car in front at roughly double our speed, presumably because the flow in lane 4 wasn't fast enough for him.

Only when the next gantry came into sight did I realise what must have happened; the lower limit and lane closure signs must have been switched off just after I'd passed the last gantry, leaving me driving ridiculously slowly in the wrong lane without knowing that the restrictions had been lifted until the next gantry came into view.

I appreciate that there isn't much that can be done about such a situation, and also that such a situation will only affect a small number of vehicles for a few seconds, but it still struck me as being yet another reason for not driving on these roads if they can be avoided.
I have experienced similar too when following the speed limit signed on the M25 while cars left and right of us were racing along because the gantry did not have a speed camera !! It seems like on the M25 J23-J27 that the regulars don't follow the speed limit and just break for the camera's - which can catch out law-abiding drivers.

To rectify this issue I would add camera's to all gantries and have them made average speed camera's to NSL or the displayed limit. Yes this is not ideal or fun one bit especially as someone who is happy cruising at 80mph but safety comes first.
Yeah don't get why average speed cameras are rarely used in England, apart from motorway roadworks. Where they are they are highly effective - almost all vehicles travel at the same speed, traffic is more evenly distributed across lanes to make full use of the road, lane changing is minimised and throughput maximised. I find it a lot less stressful to drive like that in heavy traffic as you can just follow the other vehicles along at an appropriate distance - no sudden braking, lane changes, bunching etc.
Each MS4/AMI is a terminal sign and the spacing does not meet the requirements of TSM so average speed cameras are not suitable. For road works you need equivalent signing as per fixed plate - See Chapter 8 Part 3.
Also merge in tern signs are of no use in reducing journey time through pinch points, they are of use in reducing blocking back to the previous junction, as per A303 but not in improving merging, best to fit in with everybody else.

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14879
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Chris5156 » Wed Sep 22, 2021 09:07

domcoop wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 22:23
Quite. I think there are two situations here. There is a known reduction of lane situation (e.g. A9, A303) which can be and ought to be indicated by the "Use both lanes" / "Merge in turn" signs. Even better if the lane reductions are marked like here, A589 Lancaster where it shows both lanes stopping and narrowing to one (as opposed to the right-hand lane merging into the left-hand lane, which gives the impression one lane has priority).

However the current Smart Motorway signals are different. They start with the arrow sign over the closed lane, which according to the highway code means "Change lane". The MS4s have the wicket sign indicating lane closed ahead. And then at the point of closure is the "red X".

Now I had a quick look on Highways England and the Highway Code, and interestingly there's no mention at all about "change lane" or "lane closed ahead". They only seem bothered about driving the message home to the hard of thinking about what the red X means.

But my interpretation is that "change lane", means you change lane when you can, i.e. now. It doesn't mean carry on using lane and merge in turn underneath the gantry at the red X sign / carry on using lane past red 'X' if you're in a BMW and can't be bothered waiting. So if this is what Highways Whoever They Are This Week intend, there needs to be different signs to indicate that. And of course the whole point of the mandatory speed limit enforcement is to slow the traffic down to stop waves of bunching leading to stop-start traffic. However, Audis deciding to pull in at the last minute because they're "using the available road space" are what cause bunching, as the slow moving traffic in the queue then has to come to a complete stop to let the other driver in.
I agree with all of this. I've never been comfortable with the practice of using Smart Motorway signals to close lanes in advance of a lane closure set out with cones. You end up with half the traffic observing the signals and the other half waiting until the physical closure, because two sets of signs are telling you two slightly different things.

I understand that the signals can be used to protect road workers who are setting out cones and signs, and that's fine. But once the cone taper is set out, I would rather see the signals and cones agreeing about the exact location that the lanes are closed, and that could easily be done by aligning the taper with a gantry. In advance of the closure you then use wicket signs on the MS4 signals to indicate that a lane closure is approaching.

As it stands, though, these situations are highly ambiguous and it's no wonder there are a range of different behaviours being seen.

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac » Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:37

domcoop wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 22:23
But my interpretation is that "change lane", means you change lane when you can, i.e. now. It doesn't mean carry on using lane and merge in turn underneath the gantry at the red X sign ...
This would make sense if, and only if, there was only one "change line" notification. What happens at the moment is that you get several.

I would suggest a two stage approach:
1. A single "change lane" NOW signal
2. The next gantry is the first "Red X"

domcoop
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 22:27
Location: Orrell, Lancashire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by domcoop » Wed Sep 22, 2021 16:03

Micro The Maniac wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:37
This would make sense if, and only if, there was only one "change line" notification. What happens at the moment is that you get several.

I would suggest a two stage approach:
1. A single "change lane" NOW signal
2. The next gantry is the first "Red X"
Yes that makes much more sense. The MS4s could still say "Incident ahead" to ensure drivers are aware of what's coming, and put a 60MPH limit up, a few miles in advance. Thing is, I could swear when the first ALR smart motorways came out, the Highway Agency made leaflets giving guidance on this. But when I searched, I couldn't find a thing. In fact, the top searches for road signs on smart motorways lead back to SABRE or Roads.org! There's the Highway Code, but it only mentions the red 'X' as does the HA / HE / NH pages.
Dominic

booshank
Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by booshank » Wed Sep 22, 2021 19:07

ROAD ROVER wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 22:13
booshank wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 23:00
Bendo wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 00:15


My experience is the opposite. Frequently sat behind people doing significantly less than the speed limit with traffic brunching up as a result and people getting frustrated going for marginal undertakes as they know full well they can travel significantly faster.

Average speed cameras would just cause more chaos, not to mention making enforcement more difficult when the limit changes when a car is midway between a pair.
Maybe it's a regional thing? I've only experienced it on the M4 in England in roadworks and in South Wales and it's worked really well in my opinion. But then traffic seems to flow much better on the smart part of the M4 between the M32 and M5 than it did on the M25 between the M3 and M23 when I've been there recently - people keeping to the limit, choosing an appropriate lane and sticking to it etc.
If only that were the case. To very many people the appropriate lane is the one with an empty lane to the left of them & the speed they religiously stick to (despite the queue behind them) is 10mph under the temporary limit which is 5mph by choice plus 5mph speedo inaccuracy.
Just relating my admittedly limited experience with average speed cameras, which doesn't fit your description. Most recent was a few weeks ago on the M4 roadworks returning from Heathrow to Bath mid morning. Traffic was fairly heavy, well spread between all lanes and I did not encounter anyone going inappropriately slowly - all lanes were moving at basically the same speed with minimal lane changing.

This and my perception of the difference in behaviour of driving on the M4 near Bristol and southern part of the M25 makes me think there is a regional element to it.

User avatar
ROAD ROVER
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 07:48
Location: London

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by ROAD ROVER » Wed Sep 22, 2021 23:14

booshank wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 19:07
This and my perception of the difference in behaviour of driving on the M4 near Bristol and southern part of the M25 makes me think there is a regional element to it.
Over the years since the first smart works started up in Northamptonshire on the M1, much of my experience (mainly in lorries during the evening & night time) of average speed works have been on the M1 & M6 but it has in no way been limited to those particular roads in the same way that the middle-laners haven't been either.
One strange thing l've noticed is that even when the inside lane is empty, very many of them will move out (if they move at all) to the right lane to allow you to pass on the inside rather than pull over to the left in the correct fashion, then pull back in behind you to continue bumbling down the road in the middle lane. It's most extraordinary.

Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Hdeng16 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 07:44

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rking.html

Oh dear. I’m not as anti-SM as most but this sounds pretty poor.

I’m also amazed to see that internally they’re working with the same crappy web app that is available on the public camera feeds. Just added a ‘take control’ button. I assumed joe public got a deliberately low-res version of the system. It appears not!

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker » Mon Sep 27, 2021 08:16

Hdeng16 wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 07:44
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rking.html

Oh dear. I’m not as anti-SM as most but this sounds pretty poor.

I’m also amazed to see that internally they’re working with the same crappy web app that is available on the public camera feeds. Just added a ‘take control’ button. I assumed joe public got a deliberately low-res version of the system. It appears not!
As damning as it is and ignoring the sensationalism, there's nothing there that surprises me I'm sorry to say. It'll be interesting to watch NH and the minister try to trivialise errm spin this.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Hdeng16 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 14:30

Conekicker wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 08:16
Hdeng16 wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 07:44
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rking.html

Oh dear. I’m not as anti-SM as most but this sounds pretty poor.

I’m also amazed to see that internally they’re working with the same crappy web app that is available on the public camera feeds. Just added a ‘take control’ button. I assumed joe public got a deliberately low-res version of the system. It appears not!
As damning as it is and ignoring the sensationalism, there's nothing there that surprises me I'm sorry to say. It'll be interesting to watch NH and the minister try to trivialise errm spin this.
Another rebrand imminent?!

Honestly, I thought their internal systems were far superior to the stuff we get. It's absolutely crazy that it's being run off such antiquated systems - and that's ignoring the stuff that doesn't work at all.

User avatar
EpicChef
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by EpicChef » Mon Sep 27, 2021 22:16

You know what, I used to be a supporter of managed motorways but I’m beginning to get more and more skeptical…
Of course I do like the new style signaling that is a lot more clear than the old MS1 and MS3 signals

But we need VSL with hard shoulders if the ALR isn’t being executed properly. This can’t drag on.
Smart motorways are like asbestos: they're the best option until suddenly they're not.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

fras
Member
Posts: 2778
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by fras » Mon Sep 27, 2021 23:38

As a user of motorways since the late 60s, it seems to me that the original standard of a continuous hard shoulder is not really necessary, and indeed with the widening of the M5 south of Birmingham from 2 lanes to 3, a continuous hard shoulder was abandoned at bridges some decades ago. However the question then is - how discontinuous should the hard shoulder be ? Surely the measure should be based on how far a vehicle can move after a very common fault has occurred ? This must be a tyre puncture. When one has a puncture, most people who have had this will know one cannot drive very far at all. So, IMHO, the spacing of refuges should be based on this. This will probably require refuges at a few hundred metre intervals. Where not possible due to terrain, additional mitigations would be necessary. Of course all mitigation infrastructure needs to also be assessed against traffic levels as well. Hopefully, lessons learnt will inform future works. We already have ALR dual-carriageways, the A14 is an example with no mitigation infrastructure at all. Anything proposed for motorways really needs to include heavily trafficked non-motorway dual carriageways; these cannot be just ignored, roads such as the A14 the traffic is so great it must be at motorway-type levels already.

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac » Tue Sep 28, 2021 07:24

fras wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 23:38
We already have ALR dual-carriageways, the A14 is an example with no mitigation infrastructure at all. Anything proposed for motorways really needs to include heavily trafficked non-motorway dual carriageways; these cannot be just ignored, roads such as the A14 the traffic is so great it must be at motorway-type levels already.
We could call these ALR/NSL HQDCs ExpressWays :roll: :twisted:

WHBM
Member
Posts: 8426
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by WHBM » Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:16

fras wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 23:38
Anything proposed for motorways really needs to include heavily trafficked non-motorway dual carriageways; these cannot be just ignored, roads such as the A14 the traffic is so great it must be at motorway-type levels already.
As I have regularly said, all-purpose road dual carriageways have a different, and ironically now higher standard, engineering design, with a grassed verge area which vehicles can, and do, readily pull off onto. You see this for breakdowns, works vehicles, etc. The Smart Motorway design for some unaccountable reason barriers this useful safety area off.

A3 D3, verge at the side :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2708041 ... 384!8i8192

Even the brand new Huntingdon A14 section has done it :
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2972002 ... 384!8i8192

M25 "Smart" section, equivalent area present but barriered off :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6885063 ... 384!8i8192

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker » Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:39

EpicChef wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 22:16
You know what, I used to be a supporter of managed motorways but I’m beginning to get more and more skeptical…
Of course I do like the new style signaling that is a lot more clear than the old MS1 and MS3 signals

But we need VSL with hard shoulders if the ALR isn’t being executed properly. This can’t drag on.
This can't drag on?
cough
National Highways
cough
Long grass
cough
Just saying
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker » Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:46

WHBM wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:16
fras wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 23:38
Anything proposed for motorways really needs to include heavily trafficked non-motorway dual carriageways; these cannot be just ignored, roads such as the A14 the traffic is so great it must be at motorway-type levels already.
As I have regularly said, all-purpose road dual carriageways have a different, and ironically now higher standard, engineering design, with a grassed verge area which vehicles can, and do, readily pull off onto. You see this for breakdowns, works vehicles, etc. The Smart Motorway design for some unaccountable reason barriers this useful safety area off.

A3 D3, verge at the side :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2708041 ... 384!8i8192

Even the brand new Huntingdon A14 section has done it :
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2972002 ... 384!8i8192

M25 "Smart" section, equivalent area present but barriered off :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6885063 ... 384!8i8192
Your first two examples are either on flat(ish) ground or in a cutting, hence no need for a barrier. Your last M25 example looks to be on an embankment. Barriers are provided on embankments over a certain height to reduce the severity of an accident should a vehicle run off the road. The fact it's on a motorway isn't relevant.

That's not to say that some designers go a bit overboard and put in barrier where it's not really justified of course, mostly "because it's safer", the standard phrase trotted out by clueless designers.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31716
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 » Tue Sep 28, 2021 15:18

Conekicker wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:46
WHBM wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:16
fras wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 23:38
Anything proposed for motorways really needs to include heavily trafficked non-motorway dual carriageways; these cannot be just ignored, roads such as the A14 the traffic is so great it must be at motorway-type levels already.
As I have regularly said, all-purpose road dual carriageways have a different, and ironically now higher standard, engineering design, with a grassed verge area which vehicles can, and do, readily pull off onto. You see this for breakdowns, works vehicles, etc. The Smart Motorway design for some unaccountable reason barriers this useful safety area off.

A3 D3, verge at the side :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2708041 ... 384!8i8192

Even the brand new Huntingdon A14 section has done it :
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2972002 ... 384!8i8192

M25 "Smart" section, equivalent area present but barriered off :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6885063 ... 384!8i8192
Your first two examples are either on flat(ish) ground or in a cutting, hence no need for a barrier. Your last M25 example looks to be on an embankment. Barriers are provided on embankments over a certain height to reduce the severity of an accident should a vehicle run off the road. The fact it's on a motorway isn't relevant.

That's not to say that some designers go a bit overboard and put in barrier where it's not really justified of course, mostly "because it's safer", the standard phrase trotted out by clueless designers.
It also doesn't help that the (c)RRRAP process is so convoluted most designers take one look at it and just decide that the entire length gets a VRS rather than risk falling foul of the techbro spreadsheet.

NH like these techbro spreadsheets, it increasingly seems to only be good for making a 2 minute job take 6 months and cost the taxpayer millions.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

fras
Member
Posts: 2778
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by fras » Tue Sep 28, 2021 15:32

Bryn666 wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 15:18
Conekicker wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:46
WHBM wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:16

As I have regularly said, all-purpose road dual carriageways have a different, and ironically now higher standard, engineering design, with a grassed verge area which vehicles can, and do, readily pull off onto. You see this for breakdowns, works vehicles, etc. The Smart Motorway design for some unaccountable reason barriers this useful safety area off.

A3 D3, verge at the side :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2708041 ... 384!8i8192

Even the brand new Huntingdon A14 section has done it :
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2972002 ... 384!8i8192

M25 "Smart" section, equivalent area present but barriered off :
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6885063 ... 384!8i8192
Your first two examples are either on flat(ish) ground or in a cutting, hence no need for a barrier. Your last M25 example looks to be on an embankment. Barriers are provided on embankments over a certain height to reduce the severity of an accident should a vehicle run off the road. The fact it's on a motorway isn't relevant.

That's not to say that some designers go a bit overboard and put in barrier where it's not really justified of course, mostly "because it's safer", the standard phrase trotted out by clueless designers.
It also doesn't help that the (c)RRRAP process is so convoluted most designers take one look at it and just decide that the entire length gets a VRS rather than risk falling foul of the techbro spreadsheet.

NH like these techbro spreadsheets, it increasingly seems to only be good for making a 2 minute job take 6 months and cost the taxpayer millions.
When I was working in the railway industry after privatisation, I was involved with bidding for work, and some complete lunatic in what we called "The Business Prevention Department" produced a mammoth Excel spreadsheet for preparing bids. It must have done more to result in losing business than anything else ! I used to say that out of every 10 people working in the company, one faced the customer, two backed him/her up, the the rest just looked over the shoulders of the first three !

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31716
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 » Tue Sep 28, 2021 16:10

fras wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 15:32
Bryn666 wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 15:18
Conekicker wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 08:46
Your first two examples are either on flat(ish) ground or in a cutting, hence no need for a barrier. Your last M25 example looks to be on an embankment. Barriers are provided on embankments over a certain height to reduce the severity of an accident should a vehicle run off the road. The fact it's on a motorway isn't relevant.

That's not to say that some designers go a bit overboard and put in barrier where it's not really justified of course, mostly "because it's safer", the standard phrase trotted out by clueless designers.
It also doesn't help that the (c)RRRAP process is so convoluted most designers take one look at it and just decide that the entire length gets a VRS rather than risk falling foul of the techbro spreadsheet.

NH like these techbro spreadsheets, it increasingly seems to only be good for making a 2 minute job take 6 months and cost the taxpayer millions.
When I was working in the railway industry after privatisation, I was involved with bidding for work, and some complete lunatic in what we called "The Business Prevention Department" produced a mammoth Excel spreadsheet for preparing bids. It must have done more to result in losing business than anything else ! I used to say that out of every 10 people working in the company, one faced the customer, two backed him/her up, the the rest just looked over the shoulders of the first three !
It's a bit of a generalisation but the second you want to ruin a project, get the project manager involved. When they are just signing things off things move much more smoothly, it's when they decide to get actively involved... business management is not engineering, the two don't mix.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

Post Reply