All Lane Running - Smart Motorways ?

[Patrick Harper]

The killer for ALRs, when compared to a traditional widening scheme, is the length of time they take for the expenditure in operating the smart motorway features and those linked to compromised safety, to overcome the difference in the cost of construction.

[NICK 647063]

Odd statement, we shouldn't speculate but then you go on to make the assumption that the lane would have been closed after 16 minutes. I wouldn't call that a safe assumption there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in light traffic a stranded vehicle isn't always noticed in a timely manner.

If the lane had been closed I'm sure HE would have wanted to clarify that point straight away...

Not really an odd statement tho is it! It’s hardly rocket science either the lane would be closed with a red X or failing that the stranded car would be likely left with hazards on, either way for both situations the driver failed to see this and hence has been arrested for death by dangerous driving, as I stated a call was made to the police 16 minutes earlier as a matter of course the police alert the control centre knowing the M1 is ALR here and it’s dark, when I say not to speculate I mean it’s not for us to go into great detail about the actual accident, I’m just basically saying what happens in these situations.

[Richardf]

Not a fan of all lane running at all. Experienced one for the first time a couple of years ago on the M25 and did not enjoy it at all. It didn't feel quite as safe as travelling a motorway with a hard shoulder. I was dismayed recently to discover both the M27 and M3, motorways I use most are about to get sections like this.

I have no issue with true smart motorways where the hard shoulder is only used at peak times and still exists at other times, but ALR just feels like widening on the (relative) cheap and a way to get drivers used to no hard shoulder on motorways so they can be done away with altogether.

To me the hard shoulder is what makes a motorway what it is, and providing one should be one of the primary benefits of building one. Otherwise it's just another multi lane dual carriageway with restrictions.

[thatapanydude]

To me the hard shoulder is what makes a motorway what it is, and providing one should be one of the primary benefits of building one. Otherwise it's just another multi lane dual carriageway with restrictions.

I absolutely agree whilst I don't mind ALR widening, I just don't think any road without HS should be called a motorway.

[Stevie D]

I have no issue with true smart motorways where the hard shoulder is only used at peak times and still exists at other times, but ALR just feels like widening on the (relative) cheap and a way to get drivers used to no hard shoulder on motorways so they can be done away with altogether.

To me the hard shoulder is what makes a motorway what it is, and providing one should be one of the primary benefits of building one. Otherwise it's just another multi lane dual carriageway with restrictions.

All the evidence shows that ALR is safer than part-time hard shoulder running, because it eliminates any confusion as to how many lanes drivers should be using.

ALR is not the same as a dual-carriageway with additional restrictions – as well as having periodic refuge areas, it has thorough CCTV coverage and regular matrix displays, so that if there is an incident then lanes can be closed remotely, temporary speed limits imposed and drivers can be alerted to the hazard ahead. With cars being so much more reliable now than they were back in the 1960s and 1970s when the motorway network was being developed (and drivers being more accustomed to the demands of driving on them), the need for a hard shoulder is much less than it used to be.

While there is a fractionally increased risk of a stranded vehicle in lane 1 not having been picked up on the CCTV and the matrix signs set and this causing an accident, compared with that vehicle being on the hard shoulder, there are reduced risks from stranded vehicles in the running lanes (because not everyone can get across to the hard shoulder) or debris in the road, now that the roads are being monitored and there is better communication to drivers.

Instinctively, I agree with you that a motorway with a hard shoulder feels safer than one without ... but gut feelings don't take into account the additional technology that is deployed as part of the smartification, which means that the obvious answer is not always the right one. And if it allows many more miles of motorway to be upgraded to an additional running lane within the same budget then the congestion that that saves (bearing in mind the increased accident risk of a congested motorway) alone could offset any slight increase in hazard from all-lane running.

[ManomayLR]

I have no issue with true smart motorways where the hard shoulder is only used at peak times and still exists at other times, but ALR just feels like widening on the (relative) cheap and a way to get drivers used to no hard shoulder on motorways so they can be done away with altogether.

To me the hard shoulder is what makes a motorway what it is, and providing one should be one of the primary benefits of building one. Otherwise it's just another multi lane dual carriageway with restrictions.

All the evidence shows that ALR is safer than part-time hard shoulder running, because it eliminates any confusion as to how many lanes drivers should be using.

ALR is not the same as a dual-carriageway with additional restrictions – as well as having periodic refuge areas, it has thorough CCTV coverage and regular matrix displays, so that if there is an incident then lanes can be closed remotely, temporary speed limits imposed and drivers can be alerted to the hazard ahead. With cars being so much more reliable now than they were back in the 1960s and 1970s when the motorway network was being developed (and drivers being more accustomed to the demands of driving on them), the need for a hard shoulder is much less than it used to be.

While there is a fractionally increased risk of a stranded vehicle in lane 1 not having been picked up on the CCTV and the matrix signs set and this causing an accident, compared with that vehicle being on the hard shoulder, there are reduced risks from stranded vehicles in the running lanes (because not everyone can get across to the hard shoulder) or debris in the road, now that the roads are being monitored and there is better communication to drivers.

Instinctively, I agree with you that a motorway with a hard shoulder feels safer than one without ... but gut feelings don't take into account the additional technology that is deployed as part of the smartification, which means that the obvious answer is not always the right one. And if it allows many more miles of motorway to be upgraded to an additional running lane within the same budget then the congestion that that saves (bearing in mind the increased accident risk of a congested motorway) alone could offset any slight increase in hazard from all-lane running.

I could not have said it any better.

[Richardf]

Fine, but I always feel a hard shoulder provides an escape route in an emergency or diversion route if other lanes are blocked. If the hard shoulder is being used as a lane, that opportunity is removed. Refuge areas are all well and good but technology aside they are no different to laybys on an AP road and are only usefull at the point they exist.

[Bendo]

While there is a fractionally increased risk of a stranded vehicle in lane 1 not having been picked up on the CCTV and the matrix signs set and this causing an accident, compared with that vehicle being on the hard shoulder, there are reduced risks from stranded vehicles in the running lanes (because not everyone can get across to the hard shoulder) or debris in the road, now that the roads are being monitored and there is better communication to drivers.

Fractionally increased risk? Do we know what this fraction is as given that many of us have seen stranded vehicles that have not been identified, it seems to be a large fraction.

[Conekicker]

While there is a fractionally increased risk of a stranded vehicle in lane 1 not having been picked up on the CCTV and the matrix signs set and this causing an accident, compared with that vehicle being on the hard shoulder, there are reduced risks from stranded vehicles in the running lanes (because not everyone can get across to the hard shoulder) or debris in the road, now that the roads are being monitored and there is better communication to drivers.

Fractionally increased risk? Do we know what this fraction is as given that many of us have seen stranded vehicles that have not been identified, it seems to be a large fraction.

The recent fatality on the M1 just north of J34...

[owen b]

Not a fan of all lane running at all. Experienced one for the first time a couple of years ago on the M25 and did not enjoy it at all.

I'd far rather be driving on an ALR motorway which is typically free flowing (eg. M1 J16-19) than a part time hard shoulder running motorway where drivers are confused (eg. M1 J10-13) or a traditional D3M which is typically congested (eg. M1 J13-16).

[ais523]

The safety benefits of ALR, as far as I can see, come down to "can lane 1 breakdowns typically be detected before they become a hazard?". If they can, then ALR is clearly the safest option; if they can't, then that's going to be a major issue that holds it back behind other motorway standards.

I don't know what the statistics for this are like. I also don't know, if the situation is problematic, how easy it would be to improve it (e.g. by hiring more CCTV operators).

[Chris5156]

The safety benefits of ALR, as far as I can see, come down to "can lane 1 breakdowns typically be detected before they become a hazard?". If they can, then ALR is clearly the safest option; if they can't, then that's going to be a major issue that holds it back behind other motorway standards.

I don't know what the statistics for this are like. I also don't know, if the situation is problematic, how easy it would be to improve it (e.g. by hiring more CCTV operators).

Broken down vehicles aren’t the only hazard on a motorway. A road operating close to saturation point with stop-start traffic conditions is likely to suffer a much higher accident rate than one that’s free flowing and allowing travel at a steady, predictable speed. So I’d expect the likelihood of rear-ending, side swipes and ill-advised manoeuvres borne out of frustration will all be much reduced on a freely moving four lane ALR road compared to a congested D3M.

[Stevie D]

The safety benefits of ALR, as far as I can see, come down to "can lane 1 breakdowns typically be detected before they become a hazard?". If they can, then ALR is clearly the safest option; if they can't, then that's going to be a major issue that holds it back behind other motorway standards.

It's more subtle than that. Is there an increase in non-alerted stranded vehicles in running lanes? On a traditional motorway, if a vehicle is stranded in one of the running lanes and unable to get to the hard shoulder, it is a major hazard because there is typically no way to communicate between the driver (if conscious), the control centre and other motorists, other than by someone in the vehicle or in another vehicle phoning 999. On a smart motorway, a stranded vehicle should be picked up pretty quickly whatever lane it is in. I don't know what proportion of stranded vehicles are unable to get across to the hard shoulder, but it's certainly non-zero.

[Richardf]

If the main safety benefit of ALR Smart motorway is more cameras and sensors to detect problems then why dont normal D3Ms have this level of coverage to make them safer? Seems to me the added cameras and sensors on ALR smart motorways are there as a sticking plaster to cover the loss of the hard shoulder!

What happens at sliproads and lane merges with the ALR system? Travelled the section of M27 thats about to get this 'upgrade' yesterday and tried to visualise it would be like when done. Couldnt quite work out what would happen at junctions, where at present under standard design the sliproads use hard shoulder space. Under ALR the sliproads will become shorter as far as i can see, with some merges becoming shorter as well. Doesnt this present some kind of safety issue as well.

Personally i think the M27 project is a waste of time and money.

[Richardf]

Not a fan of all lane running at all. Experienced one for the first time a couple of years ago on the M25 and did not enjoy it at all.

I'd far rather be driving on an ALR motorway which is typically free flowing (eg. M1 J16-19) than a part time hard shoulder running motorway where drivers are confused (eg. M1 J10-13) or a traditional D3M which is typically congested (eg. M1 J13-16).

Should be clear from the gantry signs which lanes can be used.

[Chris5156]

What happens at sliproads and lane merges with the ALR system? Travelled the section of M27 thats about to get this 'upgrade' yesterday and tried to visualise it would be like when done. Couldnt quite work out what would happen at junctions, where at present under standard design the sliproads use hard shoulder space. Under ALR the sliproads will become shorter as far as i can see, with some merges becoming shorter as well. Doesnt this present some kind of safety issue as well.

Personally i think the M27 project is a waste of time and money.

Standard design for a motorway sliproad is not to use the hard shoulder. The sliproad and acceleration lane on an ordinary, existing motorway should have a full hard shoulder throughout. If there’s no hard shoulder at present through the merge, it may be because of widening works that have already happened or the installation of a tiger tail merge for which the hard shoulder has been appropriated.

Unless there’s something in the way, there’s no reason the Smart Motorway works can’t include the paving of extra carriageway space to make enough space for an acceleration lane, if there isn’t enough room already.

The fundamental point is this: Smart Motorways have been installed on all sorts of roads now, with all kinds of physical constraints and which were designed in a variety of different eras of design practice. There’s nothing so unusual or difficult about the M27 that will prevent it being done there as well. You don’t have to like the fact it’s going to happen, but you will struggle to find any engineering reason why it can’t.

[Stevie D]

If the main safety benefit of ALR Smart motorway is more cameras and sensors to detect problems then why dont normal D3Ms have this level of coverage to make them safer? Seems to me the added cameras and sensors on ALR smart motorways are there as a sticking plaster to cover the loss of the hard shoulder!

Yes, the smart technology is designed to mitigate the loss of the hard shoulder. You're right, it would make all motorways safer if they had all the monitoring equipment installed even with a hard shoulder, but the additional cost of installation, maintenance and staffing would outweigh any gains from safety alone – they need both the safety and the enhanced capacity to justify their deployment.

[owen b]

Not a fan of all lane running at all. Experienced one for the first time a couple of years ago on the M25 and did not enjoy it at all.

I'd far rather be driving on an ALR motorway which is typically free flowing (eg. M1 J16-19) than a part time hard shoulder running motorway where drivers are confused (eg. M1 J10-13) or a traditional D3M which is typically congested (eg. M1 J13-16).

Should be clear from the gantry signs which lanes can be used.

It may be to you. But have you tried using M1 J10-13? I can assure you, a high proportion of drivers are not using the lanes appropriately. With J11, J11A, Toddington Services and J12 in the space of five miles, the numerous changes in hard shoulder arrangements thrown in don't make for an intuitive driving experience. Which means that the intended congestion relief and better journey time reliability isn't being realised. Plus, in my experience, the hard shoulder isn't running at times when it's quite busy, which is frustrating as your journey is slower and less free flowing than it would be if the hard shoulder was open.

[Johnathan404]

Should be clear from the gantry signs which lanes can be used.

As mentioned previously, it really isn’t.

Take a trip to M6 J10 if you want to see a stream of HGVs accidentally enter the closed hard shoulder when their running lane disappears with no warning.

The problems with the M27 scheme are not technical or engineering-related. Better questions to ask would be ‘how has the free-flowing J9-11 been prioritised over the heavily congested J11-12?’.

[ManomayLR]

I'd far rather be driving on an ALR motorway which is typically free flowing (eg. M1 J16-19) than a part time hard shoulder running motorway where drivers are confused (eg. M1 J10-13) or a traditional D3M which is typically congested (eg. M1 J13-16).

Should be clear from the gantry signs which lanes can be used.

It may be to you. But have you tried using M1 J10-13? I can assure you, a high proportion of drivers are not using the lanes appropriately. With J11, J11A, Toddington Services and J12 in the space of five miles, the numerous changes in hard shoulder arrangements thrown in don't make for an intuitive driving experience. Which means that the intended congestion relief and better journey time reliability isn't being realised. Plus, in my experience, the hard shoulder isn't running at times when it's quite busy, which is frustrating as your journey is slower and less free flowing than it would be if the hard shoulder was open.

Tell me about it. Going up the M1 to see my family in Yorkshire and between 10-13 we're bumper to bumper. Instead of cursing the traffic, you look up and curse "Hard shoulder for emergency use only" on the MS4 above. No works, no nothing. Just a big red cross providing a 3 lane bottleneck between what will be two 4-lane sections. That's why when 13-16 becomes ALR, we can't have a potential interruption of the fourth lane. 10-13 just needs to become ALR, and it'll be the best one out there for breakdown detection because those cameras every yard or two to detect people using the hard shoulder will instead work to look out for broken down vehicles in lane 1