All Lane Running - Smart Motorways ?

[WHBM]

Going back to first principles, I presume the purpose of rolling out Smart Motorways is something like:

• Within highway boundary
• Cheap
• Fast
• Minimal earthworks and structural changes
• Take advantage of new technology

Almost all of those advantages seem to have been eroded away:
It takes four years to complete the M4 scheme at a cost of £800 million for 30 miles: £26 million a mile.

You have to wonder how this happened. It is obviously not in the interests of either designers or contractors to have cheap minimalist work content schemes substituted for big contracts, and possibly not in the interest of the overall management teams at HE either.

[WHBM]

But it will be with HE's traffic control centre not TfL's - TfL's patch doesn't include the motorways.

My mistake. Fixed.

[ElsieSeedlow]

Going back to first principles, I presume the purpose of rolling out Smart Motorways is something like:

• Within highway boundary
• Cheap
• Fast
• Minimal earthworks and structural changes
• Take advantage of new technology

Almost all of those advantages seem to have been eroded away:
It takes four years to complete the M4 scheme at a cost of £800 million for 30 miles: £26 million a mile.

You have to wonder how this happened. It is obviously not in the interests of either designers or contractors to have cheap minimalist work content schemes substituted for big contracts, and possibly not in the interest of the overall management teams at HE either.

It happened because it is government big spend shovel-ready stuff because there is no land take. HA/HE Major Projects just want to deliver - if they can see tarmac and concrete - job done, see you later.
+ Austerity politics kicked in and the demand to make savings was made.
+ Few in HA/HE/DfT understand the technology

[owen b]

Don't forget that most vehicles on hard shoulders are there unlawfully - phone use, toilet break, tachograph break etc. The risk is potentially higher purely because people mistakenly think a hard shoulder is some safety nirvana when it clearly is not.

I think this is really important - not having hard shoulders forces non-emergency stops into MSAs and proper laybys. In itself, that will be a plus for safety.

But where is the comprehensive analysis that adds up all of these pros and cons of the two regimes properly to get an accurate overall assessment? That still seems to be lacking.

A figure like "38 deaths on smart motorways", while terrible in and of itself, is completely unrevealing about their safety compared with other arrangements.

Reports are published three years after project implementation. For example, this one for M25 J5-7 : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_v2.0.pdf
"Against the background of higher flows, the scheme has exceeded its safety objective :
• no increase in number or rate of fatal and weighted injury (FWI) casualties;
• no evidence that any population has been adversely affected.
The collision rate has improved as a result of the scheme. The FWI rate has also improved, while severity index and KSI rate have both increased, but these changes are not directly attributable to the scheme. In addition, severity index and KSI may have been impacted by the Police CRASH collision recording system. Compliance with Red X signals was observed on average to be 94% of the total flow on the carriageway during the lane closure. This is consistent with findings in both Y1 and Yr2 after periods." (Page 17).

There are claims on this thread and elsewhere that smart motorways have made motorway safety worse. I don't accept this for the simple reason that I am not aware of any objective evidence supporting that claim. Clearly there are specific circumstances in which a motorway user is in more danger on a smart motorway than on a conventional motorway eg. in the event of breaking down in a live lane where on a conventional motorway it would have been possible to get onto the hard shoulder. But my understanding of what reports I have seen is that overall there is not a great change in safety, which must mean that there are offsetting safety gains, presumably arising from the technology and from the elimination of non-emergency uses of the hard shoulder by vehicles which then get collided with.

[ManomayLR]

I definitely don’t think we should get rid of the MS4 - it’s a good quality VMS with natural lettering and symbols.

[avtur]

It is worth remembering that the red X has been in the Highway Code for more than 40 years. In those days, it related to lane control signals, but the message was clear - red X means do not use this lane.

Well you'd like to think the meaning of that one was pretty obvious, even without referring to the Highway Code, but there do seem to be a lot of numpties about!

I thought the brief interviews with motorists about what they knew about Smart Motorways were quite telling, just one driver appeared to know what a Smart Motorways was. The standard of driver education, awareness, and actual driving standard are woefully poor. The clips showing vehicles swerving violently at the last minute to avoid collisions with stationary vehicles may well bring attention to the shortcomings of all lanes running and lack of refuges. However, what does it tell us about the driver who swerves, are these drivers 'really' giving their driving their fullest attention?

To my mind, we're losing hard shoulders as a result of cost-cutting and the unintended (but not unpredictable) consequences are now coming home to roost.

[Alderpoint]

I thought the brief interviews with motorists about what they knew about Smart Motorways were quite telling, just one driver appeared to know what a Smart Motorways was.

Why would the average driver know (or need to know) what a "Smart Motorway" is? What they see is signs indicating various lanes being open or closed and electronic speed limit signs. What they need to do is follow those signs - it's not rocket science. They don't need to know that in the industry it's called a "Smart Motorway" anymore than they need to understand whether the dual-carriageway they are driving on is a primary route, trunk route, or just an ordinary A road.

Smart Motorways used to be called Managed Motorways and another term is Controlled Motorways. Drivers don't care what they are called: just follow what the signs say.

Driving in Germany I've seen similar systems and don't need to know what the local term for them is: I just follow the signage.

[Bryn666]

It is interesting that in the days when it was simply a trial on the M42 and still called ATM you had giant signs telling you to obey overhead signals.

Much like how the Surrey M25 still has the giant signs explaining what VSL is for perhaps these should have remained even though it is patently obvious to anyone who is not a moron what to do.

Unfortunately the bar is still exceedingly low to become a driver and we have to assume that most are indeed morons.

[trickstat]

I thought the brief interviews with motorists about what they knew about Smart Motorways were quite telling, just one driver appeared to know what a Smart Motorways was.

Why would the average driver know (or need to know) what a "Smart Motorway" is? What they see is signs indicating various lanes being open or closed and electronic speed limit signs. What they need to do is follow those signs - it's not rocket science. They don't need to know that in the industry it's called a "Smart Motorway" anymore than they need to understand whether the dual-carriageway they are driving on is a primary route, trunk route, or just an ordinary A road.

Smart Motorways used to be called Managed Motorways and another term is Controlled Motorways. Drivers don't care what they are called: just follow what the signs say.

Driving in Germany I've seen similar systems and don't need to know what the local term for them is: I just follow the signage.

While in practical terms that is largely true, the fact that so many drivers don't know what a Smart Motorway actually is seems a little worrying to me. If someone drives a particular stretch of motorway very regularly and then spends a long period in which they struggle through or avoid the roadworks installing one, I think that they ought to have some idea of what they'll be driving on once it's finished. Then again, maybe people gaining one in their own backyard tend to do their research and find out about them and know more than those who just happen to encounter one 100 miles from home?

[Micro The Maniac]

Remember that until quite recently learners were banned from motorways. If you can’t use it how are you supposed to learn to use it correctly?!

Personally, I'd go back to that... and MANDATORY motorway lessons (with a subsequent test) before being allowed to drive unsupervised on motorways.

I appreciate that, in some parts of the country, that this is a logistical challenge!

[Micro The Maniac]

Contrast that to the recent M3 Smart Motorway between J2 and 4A which has the 2.5 mile spaced refuges, even though alot of the motorway runs through pretty open heathland between J2 and J3 so there was plenty of room. A real opportunity lost.....

Heresy! Chobham Common carries a long list of international nature designations... it was made clear early on that no additional land was available - which is why the MS4s are mounted from the central reservation!

[Berk]

It’s not only a logistical challenge, it’s a fact of life that some trunk and non-trunk roads depend on motorways to provide links (from one junction to the next).

Think of the first couple of junctions on the M6, the M5 around Exeter, and so on.

The fact that some expressways and parkways are very similar to motorways in design and standards show what a contradiction this is. You would be allowed to drive on the A1139, but not on the A1(M) coming off it.

A better argument might be for graduated driving, getting a P-licence after the L-one, before being retested and getting a full licence.

[Berk]

I definitely don’t think we should get rid of the MS4 - it’s a good quality VMS with natural lettering and symbols.

I’m not aware anyone is arguing against them. Just the traffic management schemes when combined with lousy driving.

[Micro The Maniac]

A figure like "38 deaths on smart motorways", while terrible in and of itself, is completely unrevealing about their safety compared with other arrangements.

Indeed... and context is everything.

38 in five years (while very sad) means 7 or 8 per year - in the context of 100+ a year (107 in 2018, 100 in 2017) then per motorway mile, smart motorways are safer by a long chalk!

[Bendo]

A figure like "38 deaths on smart motorways", while terrible in and of itself, is completely unrevealing about their safety compared with other arrangements.

Indeed... and context is everything.

38 in five years (while very sad) means 7 or 8 per year - in the context of 100+ a year (107 in 2018, 100 in 2017) then per motorway mile, smart motorways are safer by a long chalk!

Are you going to share the yearly breakdown with us to back that up. I.e. How many deaths per year and in that year how many miles of smart motorway were there?

Because with out context, well context is just a baseless statement.

[darkcape]

Unfortunately the bar is still exceedingly low to become a driver and we have to assume that most are indeed morons.

To go back to the rail vs road comparisons & analogies; to be train driver you have to do how many hours of training, experience, exams, rule book, route familiarisation etc?

And to drive a car you sit one 60min practical test and one theory test. And then you can go take a 1t vehicle at 70mph in up to 6 lanes of rush-hour traffic. Or drive for 12 hours straight if you like.

The driving test is not fit for purpose and that is the root of most of our problems here.

Regarding comments about "freezing to death" waiting on motorway verges: if you actually followed the advice of police, HE, AA/RAC etc you would be carrying spare clothes including raincoat, blankets, gloves & hats, food & water, first aid kit, warning triangle, torch etc, so you can wait on the verge safely. If your phone is dead we have emergency phones for this service.

Again, just imagine if people actually did what was expected of them and followed the rules/advice.

[Bendo]

current standard of around every 2.5 miles which is ridiculous.

The current standard is not, nor has it ever been, 2.5 miles. It is upto 2.5 KM.

[fras]

Here we are discussing SMART motorways, yet it was four years ago that the Parliamentary Committee on Transport published their 2nd report on them, (30th June 2016).

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /63/63.pdf

The government responded on 29th September 2016

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 54/654.pdf

It is interesting that the committee recommended that the M42 scheme where the hard shoulder remains but is available for use when signs are indicate this, is better than just ALR. Yet experience is that the M42 solution is too confusing and therefore dangerous !

The M42 Active Traffic Management Pilot cost £9.0 million per mile to construct.
While it is clear that this is more expensive than the cost of using an All Lane Running
configuration, it remains less expensive than traditional motorway widening. Unlike
All Lane Running, it maintains emergency use of the hard shoulder using infrastructure
that creates a controlled environment. If traditional motorway widening has been
rejected as too expensive, then it is the model of the M42 pilot that should be considered
the basis of future schemes, rather than a permanent conversion of the hard shoulder
into a running lane, an ever-decreasing frequency of emergency refuge areas, and newly
introduced hazards impeding emergency and recovery service access to incidents.

What is clear to me having frequently driven along the two types of motorway is that ALR is far clearer and easier to understand; there is no hard shoulder !! However, how we got into a situation of short, infrequent, emergency refuges, from a government minister being told they would be only a few hundred metres apart, is what needs forensic investigation.

[solocle]

Here we are discussing SMART motorways, yet it was four years ago that the Parliamentary Committee on Transport published their 2nd report on them, (30th June 2016).

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /63/63.pdf

The government responded on 29th September 2016

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 54/654.pdf

It is interesting that the committee recommended that the M42 scheme where the hard shoulder remains but is available for use when signs are indicate this, is better than just ALR. Yet experience is that the M42 solution is too confusing and therefore dangerous !

The M42 Active Traffic Management Pilot cost £9.0 million per mile to construct.
While it is clear that this is more expensive than the cost of using an All Lane Running
configuration, it remains less expensive than traditional motorway widening. Unlike
All Lane Running, it maintains emergency use of the hard shoulder using infrastructure
that creates a controlled environment. If traditional motorway widening has been
rejected as too expensive, then it is the model of the M42 pilot that should be considered
the basis of future schemes, rather than a permanent conversion of the hard shoulder
into a running lane, an ever-decreasing frequency of emergency refuge areas, and newly
introduced hazards impeding emergency and recovery service access to incidents.

What is clear to me having frequently driven along the two types of motorway is that ALR is far clearer and easier to understand; there is no hard shoulder !! However, how we got into a situation of short, infrequent, emergency refuges, from a government minister being told they would be only a few hundred metres apart, is what needs forensic investigation.

That's offset by the hazard reduction provided by a temporary hard shoulder - especially since the HS is only likely to be used as a lane when speeds are lower. To what extent that offset works is a significant question. Also, if there's heavy traffic, but a relatively high speed, what happens then? Artificial slowing, closing the HS (and thus likely creating a tailback), or keeping the HS open at speed?

Perhaps the drivers who don't understand DHSR should be taken off the motorways! It seems to me to be in theory a good compromise between increasing capacity, and providing a (relatively) safe refuge for stranded vehicles.

While ALR is fairly simply ALR, and clearly poses significant dangers, and widening is widening, DHSR has various parameters for optimisation - at what speed do you close the hard shoulder (40 mph would be the max I'd suggest)? Could you even have a different speed limit for the hard shoulder compared to other lanes, when you're transitioning?

[c2R]

While ALR is fairly simply ALR, and clearly poses significant dangers, and widening is widening, DHSR has various parameters for optimisation - at what speed do you close the hard shoulder (40 mph would be the max I'd suggest)? Could you even have a different speed limit for the hard shoulder compared to other lanes, when you're transitioning?

Ideed, yesterday evening there was very heavy traffic on the M1 southbound between MK and Luton - all three lanes full and travelling at around 50mph - however, the hard shoulder was not in operation.