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
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Stevie D »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 08:24That's an awful lot of effort, time and expense, (signs aren't cheap), to protect less than £20 of kit. Cheaper to let it walk. Possibly. The local pond life will soon get to know the code and help themselves.
The problem with saying "cheaper to let it walk" is that now much of the time it won't be available at the ERAs to help motorists who may want it. Who is going to bother to go round checking and restocking all the ERAs knowing that it will only be a matter of days before some scrotes come and pinch it all?
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Stevie D »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:41Remember, Tinsley Viaduct was originally D2M with a wide hard shoulder. Now it’s D3M with a standard hard shoulder.

It can easily be made D4ALR, if we have ERAs immediately before and after the viaduct in both directions.
Unlikely to be any need for that. Northbound, there's an auxiliary lane for half a mile before the junction to give two exit lanes, and southbound there's a tiger tail merge, which suggests that a high enough proportion of traffic comes off the motorway there that the lane drop is justified on traffic volumes without worrying about the engineering side of it.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by WHBM »

Can someone please list what are the "Smart" features of Smart Motorways, that we have not had before.

As I understand it :

4th running lane where the hard shoulder was. We've done widening since the start of motor traffic.
Continuous hard shoulders replaced by a few ERAs.
CCTV like we have had for the past generation. Not continuously monitored (if at all).
Equipment to identify stopped vehicles never installed.

So what is new and "Smart" ?
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9860
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by owen b »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:41
Conekicker wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:06
EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:51 With RIS3 the plan is to bridge the gap J35A-39, to then have continuous 4 lanes from J23A-42.
They're replacing Tinsley Viaduct? Time to get the popcorn and beer order in now I think. Thanks for the heads up. :wink:

It'll be 3 lanes through J33 unless they replace the junction bridges.
It'll be 3 lanes over Tinsley Viaduct unless, well, you know...

The thing is, whilst there might be 4 lanes worth of demand either side of a junction, the demand through the junction usually drops of 3 lanes worth, thanks to exiting and entering traffic. That's not always the case but is much more often than not.
I forgot to clarify, with the exception of through-junction running.

Remember, Tinsley Viaduct was originally D2M with a wide hard shoulder. Now it’s D3M with a standard hard shoulder.

It can easily be made D4ALR, if we have ERAs immediately before and after the viaduct in both directions.
Tinsley viaduct originally opened as D3M, and remained that way until strengthening work commenced : https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... ey_Viaduct "the viaduct itself was subject to an £82 million scheme between 2002 and 2005 that involved significant hidden work inside the structure and saw the top deck reduced from 6 lanes to 4 lanes for the duration of the work. The top deck was due to be re-opened with 6 lanes in 2005, but consultation with the police brought up a desire to maintain 4 lanes over the viaduct to provide a lane gain and drop at each end to accommodate the significant traffic generation at this junction"
Owen

From the SABRE Wiki: Tinsley Viaduct :

The Tinsley Viaduct is a major crossing in Sheffield, where the M1 and A631 both cross the River Don and the local railway network on separate tiers. The viaduct is also next to the city's key retail area of Meadowhall.

The crossing of the Lower Don Valley was always going to be challenging. Not only was the crossing to carry a six lane motorway and a 4 lane trunk road, the crossing had to be snaked between industry, cooling towers and survive a high level of condensation

... Read More
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac »

WHBM wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 15:15 Can someone please list what are the "Smart" features of Smart Motorways, that we have not had before.
Smart is/was a buzz-word a few years back... smart-phone, smart-TV, etc - basically it means take an existing product and add some extra electronic controls. Hence I try and use digital-controlled instead of smart. Today, at least in some quarters, the buzz-word is cyber.
As I understand it :

4th running lane where the hard shoulder was. We've done widening since the start of motor traffic.
Continuous hard shoulders replaced by a few ERAs.
CCTV like we have had for the past generation. Not continuously monitored (if at all).
Equipment to identify stopped vehicles never installed.

So what is new and "Smart" ?
The theory is/was expanded capacity, variable speed limits, enhanced monitoring, and stopped-vehicle detection.

Two for four, as our friends across the pond would put it.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by WHBM »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 16:40 The theory is/was expanded capacity, variable speed limits, enhanced monitoring, and stopped-vehicle detection.

Two for four, as our friends across the pond would put it.
But we had expanded capacity and variable speeds long before. The western side of the M25 was all done like this, adding hard shoulders properly. Likewise many other places around the network. So what single item is "Smart" compared to what went before.
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Patrick Harper »

WHBM wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 17:06
Micro The Maniac wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 16:40 The theory is/was expanded capacity, variable speed limits, enhanced monitoring, and stopped-vehicle detection.

Two for four, as our friends across the pond would put it.
But we had expanded capacity and variable speeds long before. The western side of the M25 was all done like this, adding hard shoulders properly. Likewise many other places around the network. So what single item is "Smart" compared to what went before.
I'm pretty sure that the parts of M25 where MIDAS was added in the 90s qualify as 'smart'.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by ManomayLR »

Patrick Harper wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 17:11
WHBM wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 17:06
Micro The Maniac wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 16:40 The theory is/was expanded capacity, variable speed limits, enhanced monitoring, and stopped-vehicle detection.

Two for four, as our friends across the pond would put it.
But we had expanded capacity and variable speeds long before. The western side of the M25 was all done like this, adding hard shoulders properly. Likewise many other places around the network. So what single item is "Smart" compared to what went before.
I'm pretty sure that the parts of M25 where MIDAS was added in the 90s qualify as 'smart'.
They do now - though I must say that I miss the previous fiber-optic first-gen AMIs (aka CMIs).
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Stevie D »

WHBM wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 15:15 Can someone please list what are the "Smart" features of Smart Motorways, that we have not had before.

As I understand it :

4th running lane where the hard shoulder was. We've done widening since the start of motor traffic.
Continuous hard shoulders replaced by a few ERAs.
CCTV like we have had for the past generation. Not continuously monitored (if at all).
Equipment to identify stopped vehicles never installed.

So what is new and "Smart" ?
"Smart motorways" are not a revolutionary new type of road, but an umbrella term for one that consolidates a range of existing and new technologies into one.

Others that you missed:
Automatic variable speed limits that help to smooth traffic flow and prevent congestion.
More flexible message boards allowing detailed information to be relayed to drivers, including lane closures.

While CCTV coverage and monitoring isn't as comprehensive as it should be, it is better than on many traditional motorways.

Enhanced stopped vehicle detection is already in place on some sections of the M25, and is planned to be rolled out over the rest of the smart motorway network within the next couple of years. The more basic MIDAS system is used already, although this is not as effective which is why it is being upgraded.

ERAs may be safer than hard shoulders. Vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder are at high risk of being hit by trucks wandering from lane 1, whereas it's extremely unlikely that a vehicle stopped in the ERA would be hit by in inattentive driver so if you can get to the ERA then it's a better option. I don't have the stats for what proportion of emergencies would allow a vehicle to reach the hard shoulder but not to continue to an ERA but I wouldn't expect it to be particularly high.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by ManomayLR »

Also just look at the difference.

BEFORE
13BC8F03-B14C-4079-B00A-4B41D1990A77.jpeg
AFTER
40045508-9948-4DD3-A5E9-58A52458B152.jpeg
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:41
Remember, Tinsley Viaduct was originally D2M with a wide hard shoulder. Now it’s D3M with a standard hard shoulder.

It can easily be made D4ALR, if we have ERAs immediately before and after the viaduct in both directions.
No, it was originally D3M with a slightly sub-standard width hardshoulder. Then the structural problems arose and it was dropped to D2M in the mid to late 90s as I recall.

Installing D4ALR over it would be dangerously reckless. Any breakdown and you could easily find your vehicle shunted over the edge. Quite how anyone on the nearside would get out safely is anyone's guess. You might then find yourself walking up to 600m or more in a live lane, at night in the rain on an unlit road, to get to a place of safety. Hands up anyone who fancies their chances doing that? Splat? Oh I can see HE going for that in a heartbeat. Which would happen if no one had the sphericals to point out harsh reality.

Beyond that, inevitably someone would attempt to vault the parapet to get to safety - splat. You might think that wouldn't happen except it did many years ago on the A1(M) at Don Viaduct, where there is an air gap between the north and southbound carriageways. A car broke down in the offside lane. Driver vaulted the centre barrier to get to safety. Before my time so I don't know whether the guy ended up in the river, canal or more likely the fields below. Fatal, obviously. There's a metal mesh now to prevent any further occurrences there.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.50858 ... 6656?hl=en

Same location on the northbound, a HGV burst through the nearside parapet and flew a few metres, hitting the embankment and killing the driver.

So putting HGVs constantly that close to the nearside parapet on Tinsley over a length of about three quarters of mile will generate how many strikes to the parapet each year? What do you do when it gets hit? Or burst through?

Going for D4ALR without knowing what can happen when it inevitably goes pear-shaped is foolishly unwise in the extreme. It might be possible to fit D4ALR in, whether it's sensible and safe to do so is another matter entirely. As far as HE design decisions go, operational experience should trump the ideal world of office based designers every time. Especially when the bean counters and "Value Engineering" start to stick their two pen-orth in. Unfortunately that's not the case, hence the problems with SM schemes.

Edit: There's a metal mesh fitted to the verge parapets over Tinsley to stop debris falling onto whatever is below. This debris includes bikers that might have come off their bikes.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.41761 ... 8192?hl=en
Last edited by Conekicker on Sat Feb 27, 2021 20:19, edited 3 times in total.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker »

Stevie D wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:44
Conekicker wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 08:24That's an awful lot of effort, time and expense, (signs aren't cheap), to protect less than £20 of kit. Cheaper to let it walk. Possibly. The local pond life will soon get to know the code and help themselves.
The problem with saying "cheaper to let it walk" is that now much of the time it won't be available at the ERAs to help motorists who may want it. Who is going to bother to go round checking and restocking all the ERAs knowing that it will only be a matter of days before some scrotes come and pinch it all?
I wasn't suggesting it was cheaper to let it walk. I was suggesting it would be better not to provide it in the first place, because attempting to ensure it's there when people might need it brings in all sorts of other problems. Most pointedly starting with exposing the workforce to live traffic by making them go out to check it once every (insert time period of your choice here.)
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Chris5156 »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 20:02
EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:41
Remember, Tinsley Viaduct was originally D2M with a wide hard shoulder. Now it’s D3M with a standard hard shoulder.

It can easily be made D4ALR, if we have ERAs immediately before and after the viaduct in both directions.
No, it was originally D3M with a slightly sub-standard width hardshoulder. Then the structural problems arose and it was dropped to D2M in the mid to late 90s as I recall.
Agree with everything Conekicker wrote, but I would add the extra observation that the Tinsley Viaduct is not the world’s strongest structure and its unlikely to be able to carry D4 without further strengthening work. It was no small job to get it to the point where it could safely carry three lanes of traffic again.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:17 Agree with everything Conekicker wrote, but I would add the extra observation that the Tinsley Viaduct is not the world’s strongest structure and its unlikely to be able to carry D4 without further strengthening work. It was no small job to get it to the point where it could safely carry three lanes of traffic again.
Quite.

When the cooling towers adjacent the viaduct were demolished a few years ago, I looked at diversion routes if the viaduct became "lost".

Let's just say it's a good thing it survived, because traffic movements at both a local and national level would have been Chinese interesting.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by RichardA35 »

Conekicker wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 17:52
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:17 Agree with everything Conekicker wrote, but I would add the extra observation that the Tinsley Viaduct is not the world’s strongest structure and its unlikely to be able to carry D4 without further strengthening work. It was no small job to get it to the point where it could safely carry three lanes of traffic again.
Quite.

When the cooling towers adjacent the viaduct were demolished a few years ago, I looked at diversion routes if the viaduct became "lost".

Let's just say it's a good thing it survived, because traffic movements at both a local and national level would have been Chinese interesting.
It's a long time since I was involved in managing bridge assessments on widening works but back in the day it was assessed on the basis of notional lanes - how many 3m lanes you could fit in the carriageway - imagine lorries bunching together stopped then all having to shuffle over and filling imaginary lanes tight to the centre because of a police incident who then bring an hgv into the gap made.
The point is - the physical width of the carriageway determies the structure loading and assessment - not the white line arrangement - unless of course things have changed.
XC70
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by XC70 »

EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 19:18 Also just look at the difference.

BEFORE
13BC8F03-B14C-4079-B00A-4B41D1990A77.jpeg

AFTER
40045508-9948-4DD3-A5E9-58A52458B152.jpeg
Yeah, that is night and day different :roll:
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 20:02
EpicChef wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 14:41
Remember, Tinsley Viaduct was originally D2M with a wide hard shoulder. Now it’s D3M with a standard hard shoulder.

It can easily be made D4ALR, if we have ERAs immediately before and after the viaduct in both directions.
No, it was originally D3M with a slightly sub-standard width hardshoulder. Then the structural problems arose and it was dropped to D2M in the mid to late 90s as I recall.

Installing D4ALR over it would be dangerously reckless. Any breakdown and you could easily find your vehicle shunted over the edge. Quite how anyone on the nearside would get out safely is anyone's guess. You might then find yourself walking up to 600m or more in a live lane, at night in the rain on an unlit road, to get to a place of safety. Hands up anyone who fancies their chances doing that? Splat? Oh I can see HE going for that in a heartbeat. Which would happen if no one had the sphericals to point out harsh reality.

Beyond that, inevitably someone would attempt to vault the parapet to get to safety - splat. You might think that wouldn't happen except it did many years ago on the A1(M) at Don Viaduct, where there is an air gap between the north and southbound carriageways. A car broke down in the offside lane. Driver vaulted the centre barrier to get to safety. Before my time so I don't know whether the guy ended up in the river, canal or more likely the fields below. Fatal, obviously. There's a metal mesh now to prevent any further occurrences there.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.50858 ... 6656?hl=en

Same location on the northbound, a HGV burst through the nearside parapet and flew a few metres, hitting the embankment and killing the driver.

So putting HGVs constantly that close to the nearside parapet on Tinsley over a length of about three quarters of mile will generate how many strikes to the parapet each year? What do you do when it gets hit? Or burst through?

Going for D4ALR without knowing what can happen when it inevitably goes pear-shaped is foolishly unwise in the extreme. It might be possible to fit D4ALR in, whether it's sensible and safe to do so is another matter entirely. As far as HE design decisions go, operational experience should trump the ideal world of office based designers every time. Especially when the bean counters and "Value Engineering" start to stick their two pen-orth in. Unfortunately that's not the case, hence the problems with SM schemes.

Edit: There's a metal mesh fitted to the verge parapets over Tinsley to stop debris falling onto whatever is below. This debris includes bikers that might have come off their bikes.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.41761 ... 8192?hl=en
A much smaller example is the Rakewood Viaduct on the M62, which drops the hard shoulder to allow for the eastbound climbing lane into Mordor Yorkshire. If you break down here, you're stuffed. https://goo.gl/maps/53X5Lpw9MLHP8pgy8

There have been a few unfortunate deaths from people 'falling' (media speak for intentional attempts to end their life) here, which given the height of the viaduct it's easy to do. I'm not sure how you prevent this short of having ridiculously high parapets which would cause visual intrusion for miles around and screw with FSSD.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bomag »

RichardA35 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 19:25
Conekicker wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 17:52
Chris5156 wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:17 Agree with everything Conekicker wrote, but I would add the extra observation that the Tinsley Viaduct is not the world’s strongest structure and its unlikely to be able to carry D4 without further strengthening work. It was no small job to get it to the point where it could safely carry three lanes of traffic again.
Quite.

When the cooling towers adjacent the viaduct were demolished a few years ago, I looked at diversion routes if the viaduct became "lost".

Let's just say it's a good thing it survived, because traffic movements at both a local and national level would have been Chinese interesting.
It's a long time since I was involved in managing bridge assessments on widening works but back in the day it was assessed on the basis of notional lanes - how many 3m lanes you could fit in the carriageway - imagine lorries bunching together stopped then all having to shuffle over and filling imaginary lanes tight to the centre because of a police incident who then bring an hgv into the gap made.
The point is - the physical width of the carriageway determies the structure loading and assessment - not the white line arrangement - unless of course things have changed.
If you did that with Tinsley it would never, ever, pass. It had a structure specific loading pattern.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by ManomayLR »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 16:30
A much smaller example is the Rakewood Viaduct on the M62, which drops the hard shoulder to allow for the eastbound climbing lane into Mordor Yorkshire. If you break down here, you're stuffed. https://goo.gl/maps/53X5Lpw9MLHP8pgy8
This does go a little off-topic, but does it not make sense to operate this junction further down as a lane drop?

It makes more sense than having a deceleration lane and simultaneously a lane lost on the offside.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9860
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by owen b »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/have ... ghway-code

"Have your say on guidance for driving on motorways and high-speed roads in The Highway Code
The Highway Code is to be updated to give motorists a better understanding of what to do on motorways and high-speed roads and how they operate.
The consultation runs until 23.59 on Monday 29 March 2021. To have your say, visit the consultation webpage."
Owen
Post Reply