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
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26147
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Owain »

ais523 wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 03:47 In general, there seems to be an under-use of "end of restrictions" signs ("End" or NSL), although they may not have helped in this particular case. In my opinion, they should be switched on for some time after the restrictions end, so that people who were in the restrictions become aware that they no longer apply (as opposed to potentially getting no indication as to whether the gantries are broken or the restrictions have been silently revoked). The official guidance seems to disagree with me, suggesting keeping them on for 3 minutes at most, and in practice they seem to be on for a much shorter length of time or not at all.

FWIW, I had a similar experience to you once, but it was on a non-smart section of the M6, which meant that the limit and closure signs were advisory rather than mandatory; that made it a bit easier to use common sense in a situation like that one, but also reduced compliance with the restrictions in the first place. (It also meant that VMSes were few and far between, with only the occasional MS1 trying to explain what was going on, and mostly failing due to its tiny screen.)
In the case I related above, the signs were simply switched off.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this, but I'd imagine that there might be some solution in staggering their switch off from the end of the affected section back towards the beginning (rather than staggering it from beginning to end, or switching all off at the same time)? That would prevent traffic that's been freed from restrictions from catching up with traffic that is still subject to them.

Something else that has occurred to me is that the scenario I described above actually creates a legal situation whereby traffic travelling on the same stretch of road at the same time is subject to different regulations! As the last sign I had passed said 40, that speed limit applied to me until I reached a sign that said otherwise (or was switched off). But that limit did not apply legally to any of vehicles over/undertaking me, as the sign that told me to do 40 had been switched off and did not apply to them by the time they passed it.

I know that different types of vehicle are often subject to different speed limits, but the situation we're talking about here is one where the limit is 40 for one person in one car, but 70 for a different person in an identical car. I know the police would not have been bothered about a driver in my situation twigging what was going on and putting their foot down, but from a strictly legal point of view that driver would technically be breaking the law (and by a huge margin) if they accelerated to 70 before they reached a gantry permitting them to do that speed.
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Peter Freeman »

marconaf wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 19:44
Brenley Corner wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 18:02 Having used ALR on Smart Motorways I am ambivalent on them and never felt unsafe but assuming the consensus comes down against them then we have the following options bearing in mind that we have busted the bank funding the pandemic.
1. No action. Legal action and compensation will result after any deaths.
2. Keep ALR but lower speed across network e.g. 50mph. Frustration and complaints; slower journey times
3. Close Lane 1 and restore to hard shoulder. Congestion will restart and increasing delays across the network.
4. Widen motorway to provide hard shoulder on all schemes. Huge cost that cannot be afforded without cuts elsewhere, resistance to more land take.
Option 5. Put in discontinuous hard shoulders, so wherever there is a choke point, eg bridge or whatever, dont have one, but where there is land to simply dig into and surface, do it. We dont need a continuous HS, but need far more than these absurdly spaced refuge areas.
I've always favoured the smart motorway concept, and ALR as its ultimate expression. Whatever your views on active travel, improving/expanding railways, car sharing, etc, it's inescapable that the UK will continue to require higher traffic capacity, especially on its trunk motorways. And since road construction is very expensive or subject to environmental/nimby obstacles, the assets that we already have must be 'sweated'. Equally, public reaction, and even professional and Sabre reaction, to ALR requires that safety issues, real or perceived, must be acted on. The HE stocktake accepted this, and some welcome actions (painted ERs, reduced ER spacing, SVD, ...) are underway and must continue.

More is warranted, but, as usual with complex issues, the solution is not single-tracked. Each action with merit should begin, and they should be steadily pursued in parallel. Of the actions 1-5 listed above, I would adopt these -
Option 2 - permanent reduced speed limit on ALR. It's not a cure, but a small help. I'd suggest 60 rather than 50, and perhaps only in lane 1, or 1 and 2. In this case, gantry speed limit signs would need to be always on.
Option 5 - intermittent hard shoulder. The motorway system has always had sections of no-shoulder: some major bridges, tunnels, historic widenings-on-the-cheap, etc. They haven't been a problem. Keith W correctly points out that this action is not as simple as it sounds, but do it where practicable and within the budget. When such a new shoulder is lengthy, it should have regular interruptions to prevent it being intentionally or unintentionally used as a running lane.
Big L wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 20:42 Option 6, see how effective SVD is when it's up and running before chucking the whole thing in the bin on the say-so of people who have been against the idea from the start.
Option 6 - of course. Don't go all-out on other options until some evidence of SVD effectiveness is in.
thomas417
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 21:13

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by thomas417 »

Option 5 seems the way to go to me also. Intermittent hard shoulders that don't run under bridges or particularly tricky obstacles seems to be a good compromise. The added benefit is also reliability, having roads where there is a high chance of vehicles becoming stranded in live lanes is not only dangerous but involves closing numbers of lanes everytime such an incident happens.

It's not easy no but it's certainly not insurmountable. Many stretches of smart motorway involved the reconstruction of the hard shoulder to make it a running lane. I also remember the M1 around Nottingham using polystyrene blocks to build the new shoulders quickly, innovative solutions like this can be employed as part of a rolling programme to "improve safety and reliability of smart motorways" - who's going to object to that?

It would also be helpful to pause starting construction of new smart motorways schemes and any that are due to open have a marked shoulder for the meantime, the technology can still operate to help with congestion. Current stretches need to be taken on a case by case basis with either speed limits or marked shoulder until longer term measures can be introduced.

Simply put smart motorways as they are currently implemented have been a mistake but just because a decision was taken in the past doesn't mean we have to stick with it.
deadly
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 22:40
Location: Staffs

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by deadly »

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've witnessed several similar scenarios. I've also noticed that people tend to ignore lane closures displayed on MS4s. Shortly after the opening of M6 J16-19's smartification, I was travelling northbound at about 4:30 am. The MS4s progressively closed the left 2 lanes and brought the speed limit down to 40. There I was, being forced to pootle along in lane 3 at 40 in the dark, whilst other traffic was bearing down on me at 80+. Then the signs just went blank. I wrote to Highways England, and they admitted that there were aware of issues with the displays, which were being "investigated", but at the same time insisted that I could only legally continue at 40 mph until I left the motorway. That I experienced a similar, indefinite 60 mph limit on the M1 this summer, I can only assume that the problems persist.

This issue to me is at least as important as the lack of hard shoulder.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Brenley Corner wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 18:02 Having used ALR on Smart Motorways I am ambivalent on them and never felt unsafe but assuming the consensus comes down against them then we have the following options bearing in mind that we have busted the bank funding the pandemic.
1. No action. Legal action and compensation will result after any deaths.
2. Keep ALR but lower speed across network e.g. 50mph. Frustration and complaints; slower journey times
3. Close Lane 1 and restore to hard shoulder. Congestion will restart and increasing delays across the network.
4. Widen motorway to provide hard shoulder on all schemes. Huge cost that cannot be afforded without cuts elsewhere, resistance to more land take.

You cannot undo what has been done, so assuming you have to make the decision then what would you do?
You forgot Option 5;
* Reclassify them all as A roads ceteris paribus - after all, dual-carriageways do not have hard shoulders and are clear for 70mph running.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker »

So despite the cough slight cough problems with their technology, NH seen convinced they know what they are doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvVRoPUmSOI

You might say they are somewhat divorced from reality. You might say that but I couldn't possibly comment. As the saying goes.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Patrick Harper »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 17:30You forgot Option 5;
* Reclassify them all as A roads ceteris paribus - after all, dual-carriageways do not have hard shoulders and are clear for 70mph running.
70mph non-motorway D4's are very rare so that would be unprecedented.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by KeithW »

Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:36
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 17:30You forgot Option 5;
* Reclassify them all as A roads ceteris paribus - after all, dual-carriageways do not have hard shoulders and are clear for 70mph running.
70mph non-motorway D4's are very rare so that would be unprecedented.

Let me present you with the A19 approaching the Tees Flyover
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55806 ... 8192?hl=en

Then there is the short D5 section at the Thornaby turnoff
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55318 ... 8192?hl=en

Note that there is a third Tees Crossing in RIS3 and that will involve widening the existing A19 flyover to 3 lanes.

If you are looking darn south there is the A13
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.52265 ... 8192?hl=en

The A2 of course but it does have discontinuous section of hard shoulder.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.40972 ... 8192?hl=en

Last but not least the A406 Barking Relief Road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.58088 ... 8192?hl=en

It seems to me there are plenty of precedents.
thomas417
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 21:13

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by thomas417 »

KeithW wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:58
Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:36
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 17:30You forgot Option 5;
* Reclassify them all as A roads ceteris paribus - after all, dual-carriageways do not have hard shoulders and are clear for 70mph running.
70mph non-motorway D4's are very rare so that would be unprecedented.

Let me present you with the A19 approaching the Tees Flyover
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55806 ... 8192?hl=en

Then there is the short D5 section at the Thornaby turnoff
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55318 ... 8192?hl=en

Note that there is a third Tees Crossing in RIS3 and that will involve widening the existing A19 flyover to 3 lanes.

If you are looking darn south there is the A13
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.52265 ... 8192?hl=en

The A2 of course but it does have discontinuous section of hard shoulder.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.40972 ... 8192?hl=en

Last but not least the A406 Barking Relief Road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.58088 ... 8192?hl=en

It seems to me there are plenty of precedents.
The A2 seems to be a good example of what we should be aiming for. 4 lanes with a narrow shoulder, so you've at least got somewhere to get out of a live lane, and regular gantries for the technology. Keeping it narrow also helps minimise land take and drainage issues.
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Patrick Harper »

KeithW wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:58
Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:36
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 17:30You forgot Option 5;
* Reclassify them all as A roads ceteris paribus - after all, dual-carriageways do not have hard shoulders and are clear for 70mph running.
70mph non-motorway D4's are very rare so that would be unprecedented.

Let me present you with the A19 approaching the Tees Flyover
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55806 ... 8192?hl=en

Then there is the short D5 section at the Thornaby turnoff
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.55318 ... 8192?hl=en

Note that there is a third Tees Crossing in RIS3 and that will involve widening the existing A19 flyover to 3 lanes.

If you are looking darn south there is the A13
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.52265 ... 8192?hl=en

The A2 of course but it does have discontinuous section of hard shoulder.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.40972 ... 8192?hl=en

Last but not least the A406 Barking Relief Road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.58088 ... 8192?hl=en

It seems to me there are plenty of precedents.
Your London examples have 50mph limits and the A2 (for the most part) has a hard shoulder, so I stand by my comment.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Chris5156 »

Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:53Your London examples have 50mph limits and the A2 (for the most part) has a hard shoulder, so I stand by my comment.
OK, how about the brand new A14 which opened a couple of years ago, and is NSL D4 without a hard shoulder and with ERAs?

Unusual, yes. Unprecedented, no!
User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Patrick Harper »

Chris5156 wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:33
Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:53Your London examples have 50mph limits and the A2 (for the most part) has a hard shoulder, so I stand by my comment.
OK, how about the brand new A14 which opened a couple of years ago, and is NSL D4 without a hard shoulder and with ERAs?

Unusual, yes. Unprecedented, no!
Despecialising all D4 ALRs would be unprecedented, that has never happened before.

I'm fun at parties that's for sure...
Bomag
Member
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bomag »

Chris5156 wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:33
Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:53Your London examples have 50mph limits and the A2 (for the most part) has a hard shoulder, so I stand by my comment.
OK, how about the brand new A14 which opened a couple of years ago, and is NSL D4 without a hard shoulder and with ERAs?

Unusual, yes. Unprecedented, no!
That's a D3 plus lane drop, in the middle of a large and spread out interchange. It's not the same as a D4 inter junction link.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by JammyDodge »

Bomag wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 13:42
Chris5156 wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:33
Patrick Harper wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:53Your London examples have 50mph limits and the A2 (for the most part) has a hard shoulder, so I stand by my comment.
OK, how about the brand new A14 which opened a couple of years ago, and is NSL D4 without a hard shoulder and with ERAs?

Unusual, yes. Unprecedented, no!
That's a D3 plus lane drop, in the middle of a large and spread out interchange. It's not the same as a D4 inter junction link.
Sounds a lot like the M3 ALR
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jackal »

The ORR seem pretty happy with the evidence stocktake:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ata-report

National Highways response:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-response
fras
Member
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by fras »

jackal wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 17:28 The ORR seem pretty happy with the evidence stocktake:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ata-report

National Highways response:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-response
So why don't I feel safe on them ?
Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by KeithW »

fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21
So why don't I feel safe on them ?
Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
Drive on the non smart A1(M) between Alconbury and Peterborough and you may find HGV's in lane 3. I cant say I ever felt at risk as a result. Of more concern were the high powered SUV's doing ludicrous speeds and those plodders doing 60 in lane 3 when lanes 1 and 2 were clear. The statistical evidence is clear, there is little or no evidence to suggest any elevated risk on Smart Motorways. There is plenty of evidence however that All Purpose Strategic roads such as the A1, A34, A43 and A66 are more dangerous to drive on. Perhaps in the name of safety we should be asking for them to be actively managed.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac »

fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21 Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
HGVs in lane 3 is not specific to ALR "digital" motorways, but to any dual-carriageway with more four lanes.

To be honest, the only time I feel nervous about HGVs in lane 3 is on the M3 coming through from the M25/anticlockwise, when through-junction traffic is only one lane, so HGVs appear in the outside lane (now lane 4) and have to move over to lane 3 - just as the ex-M25/clockwise traffic is merging into lane 2

M3/J2 westbound is an utter mess... and while capacity may not have warranted two lanes through the junction, IMHO such practicalities mean it should have been - even if this meant a lane drop of lane 5 after the M25 merges were complete. But I'd also add a solid/dashed white line to (in theory at least) stop vehicles moving into Lane 5.
User avatar
Ruperts Trooper
Member
Posts: 12023
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Ruperts Trooper »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:33
fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21 Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
HGVs in lane 3 is not specific to ALR "digital" motorways, but to any dual-carriageway with more four lanes.

To be honest, the only time I feel nervous about HGVs in lane 3 is on the M3 coming through from the M25/anticlockwise, when through-junction traffic is only one lane, so HGVs appear in the outside lane (now lane 4) and have to move over to lane 3 - just as the ex-M25/clockwise traffic is merging into lane 2

M3/J2 westbound is an utter mess... and while capacity may not have warranted two lanes through the junction, IMHO such practicalities mean it should have been - even if this meant a lane drop of lane 5 after the M25 merges were complete. But I'd also add a solid/dashed white line to (in theory at least) stop vehicles moving into Lane 5.
The ban on HGVs and trailers in the outside lane where there's 3 or more lanes only applies to motorways - it doesn't apply to other dual carriageways, not that there are many with 3 or more lanes.
Lifelong motorhead
Bendo
Member
Posts: 2257
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bendo »

fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21
jackal wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 17:28 The ORR seem pretty happy with the evidence stocktake:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ata-report

National Highways response:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-response
So why don't I feel safe on them ?
Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
I don't feel unsafe on them, but the abysmal lane discipline is extremely irritating as even when traffic is light, there is usually a swath of idiots sat in L3 doing ~ 60 for no reason whatsoever and L1 near empty.

If the SVD works as planned, then assuming there are sufficient signs and reasonable compliance {which there should be now HADECS can do red x enforcement), they should be safer than traditional motorways as breakdowns in other lanes should be detected and the lane closed.
Post Reply