The future of smart motorways

[Berk]

I'd suggest future-proofing them at the design stage would be wise, including but not limited to:

1) Widening the verge where possible to ease the construction of a hard shoulder or extra traffic lane in future.
2) Setting back drainage, safety fencing, traffic signs and other infrastructure out of the path of this future widening.
3) Providing emergency refuge areas at 1 mile intervals, regardless of how difficult the topography at the site might be.
4) Lighting the route - it's far easier to see a broken down vehicle on a lit section.

Nice ideas, but all this discussion ignores the elephant in the room which is Highways England's poor budget management. Several of the schemes I've worked on for RIS1 have been initially all go and then, literally a couple of weeks later, all stop as the PMs discover they don't have the budget to cover the design work. The same has happened on schemes to upgrade normal motorways to smart motorway standard. My hope for the New Year is that senior management within HE get a grip on this most fundamental issue of money available to both design and construct their projects.

And where’s the scrutiny for that?? HE is a nationalised company, after all. Well, it must be down to our MP’s, and they’re all busy talking about

Besides, they never talk about this sort of thing, ever. You’re very lucky if even the Public Accounts Committee ever talk about it. HE therefore manage their own ship, pretty much.

[nowster]

Oh, and there should be a limit (2?) of white "move over" arrows before it becomes a Red "X" to discourage numpties from belting up the closing lane after everyone has moved over (because there's three miles to go until the X)

But only as long as the overhead light signs don't contradict the metal signs, meaning you've got a red X above an empty lane with verge signage saying the lane doesn't close for another 400 yards.

[Stevie D]

I'd really like to know too, why the powers that be decided to move from HSR to ALR. I haven't seen a single situation where choosing ALR over HSR has proven beneficial.

Every installation of ALR is beneficial in comparison to DHSR.

ALR is clear and simple, and no-one is at risk of being confused about what lanes they can drive in. Sure, there are a lot of drivers who will never use lane 1 (or at least, not until the 300yd marker for their exit), and on motorways with frequent junctions there will invariably be some drivers who don't know the difference between lane-drop and non-lane-drop signage who don't know when they can use lane 1 without being whipped off onto a slip road – but that isn't a problem with smart motorways, it would be exactly the same on a traditional motorway with a permanent hard shoulder. Much of the time, I'm sure drivers aren't even aware that there isn't a hard shoulder.

DHSR is a confusing mess. Signage and road markings vary between different installations. Signage is often wordy, which increases the risk of drivers – particularly those from overseas – not understanding it. The one diagramatic sign that is used is unclear as it can look like the left-most arrow has been crossed out indicating that you can't use the hard shoulder, which is the opposite of what it is actually showing. Junction signage often doesn't comply with the usual rules because at some times the junction is a lane-drop and at other times it isn't, meaning that fixed signs can't tell the whole story all the time. Drivers have so many more signs that they need to pay attention to – on a busy road when approaching a junction – that it is no surprise that they don't always get things right. Road markings likewise can be confusing if they need to account for different merge and diverge points depending on which lanes are open.

[AndyB]

The Highway Code could be fixed with one clause:

You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder unless signage indicates otherwise.

Which also deals with contraflows, central reservation works etc requiring hard shoulder running in roadworks.

NI has been extending its Hard Shoulder bus lanes. They're governed by rotating prism signs, which have up to three faces available: "Hard shoulder only", "Hard Shoulder and bus lane for 25+" with morning times and "Hard Shoulder and bus lane for 25+" with evening times. The earliest signs omitted "Only" and the new signs have bouncing balls - but the message remains simple.

DHS sounds good, but it doesn't go well with human drivers. I would also hazard a guess that the difference between a full Red X do not proceed with wigwags and the exploded X lane closed isn't exactly well understood.

Cone tapers starting too far beyond Red Xs are a whole other annoying issue. Without cameras, they will be ignored.

[ais523]

I think smart motorways should make more use of advisory lane closures.

I'm not sure I understand...?

Either the lane is open, closing (white "move over" arrows) or is closed (red "x")

Oh, and there should be a limit (2?) of white "move over" arrows before it becomes a Red "X" to discourage numpties from belting up the closing lane after everyone has moved over (because there's three miles to go until the X)

Imagine a situation where the lane closes some time after a VMS and before the next gantry. You might have "lane closes in 200 yards" signs in the verge or central reservation, for example. A red X would be inappropriate here because that would close the lane "early".

The correct sign would be the red T sign (i.e. basically the "cul-de-sac" sign, but applying to a single lane rather than the whole road). MS4s can show this, and it's included in the TSRGD as the correct sign to use for an advisory lane closure (i.e. "you really shouldn't be in this lane, and continuing in it long-distance won't work, but can continue past the sign to look for a safe place to merge in").

For example, I'd expect a closure for roadworks to look like "move over", "mover over", "advisory closed", "red X" on four successive gantries or MS4s (unless the closure happened to start almost exactly at an MS4). On newer motorways, there would also be yellow roadworks-ish signs showing the lane closures in the central reservation at the fixed taper points.

[jusme]

On newer motorways, there would also be yellow roadworks-ish signs showing the lane closures in the central reservation at the fixed taper points.

Does anyone have any pictures of these actually in use? Would love to know what they're supposed to show (other than the various surreal light patterns on the odd broken ones).



(The ones on the new M6 J16-19 ALR seem to be bigger...)

[Johnathan404]

No but I have seen them in use on the M62. They just recreate the advance wicket signs in, IIRC, white-on-black.

[Bendo]

Oh, and there should be a limit (2?) of white "move over" arrows before it becomes a Red "X" to discourage numpties from belting up the closing lane after everyone has moved over (because there's three miles to go until the X)

But only as long as the overhead light signs don't contradict the metal signs, meaning you've got a red X above an empty lane with verge signage saying the lane doesn't close for another 400 yards.

I thought it was compulsory for them to contradict each other the amount of times I've seen it.

[Berk]

Not to mention the 20, 40, 60, 20 etc. etc.

[Big L]

I have never seen 20 on a variable speed limit sign. 30 once, but for almost an hour as traffic was utterly stationary at the time.

[Chris5156]

I have never seen 20 on a variable speed limit sign. 30 once, but for almost an hour as traffic was utterly stationary at the time.

I've been through VSL 20s on the M42, at about 2am, when there were roadworks and the motorway was coned down to a single lane. It was completely unnecessary given all the standard traffic management, but I think had been put in place while workers were setting out cones and barriers.

That must be the best part of ten years ago now; I don't know how likely the same would be today because I expect policy and practice on this sort of thing has changed multiple times since then.

[lefthandedspanner]

Not to mention the 20, 40, 60, 20 etc. etc.

I have never seen 20 on a variable speed limit sign. 30 once, but for almost an hour as traffic was utterly stationary at the time.

It depends very much on where you drive, and on how much penny-pinching happened during the construction phase, and/or how badly the subcontractors who wrote the controlling software cut corners/delivered a substandard product.

My experience of VSL is mostly on the M62 in West Yorkshire (a relatively old scheme, presumably built before the potential for penny-pinching was fully realised) and I find the speed limit changes on there are always smooth and continuous - but I have sometimes seen less smooth variations on the M1 around Sheffield, e.g. 60 - 40 - 60 on consecutive gantries, and can well believe more severe variation happens elsewhere.

[fras]

Essentially what has been installed is a new and far more complex "production system", (ALR and HSR motorways), with the existing "workforce" (the public) left completely untrained for it. There used to be a lot of announcements and adverts on TV many years ago, from the Ministry of Transport, (remember them ?) on new features of the road network and there were a lot when motorways were rolling out. Now there is nothing at all, just draconian fines for those that transgress and who mostly don't understand why. A recipe for a disaster, I think.

[Berk]

Not to mention the 20, 40, 60, 20 etc. etc.

I have never seen 20 on a variable speed limit sign. 30 once, but for almost an hour as traffic was utterly stationary at the time.

It depends very much on where you drive, and on how much penny-pinching happened during the construction phase, and/or how badly the subcontractors who wrote the controlling software cut corners/delivered a substandard product.

My experience of VSL is mostly on the M62 in West Yorkshire (a relatively old scheme, presumably built before the potential for penny-pinching was fully realised) and I find the speed limit changes on there are always smooth and continuous - but I have sometimes seen less smooth variations on the M1 around Sheffield, e.g. 60 - 40 - 60 on consecutive gantries, and can well believe more severe variation happens elsewhere.

I’m thinking of the M25, during the daytime; it is my main experience of smart motorways. And even with the volumes of traffic it carries, I struggle to understand the thinking behind having such a wildly varying sequence of limits.

It makes mockery of limits observance, it causes severe bunching as you’d expect, and surely must contribute to additional accidents when less observant people don’t leave enough stopping distance.

Can I just explain for any of these journeys, I’ve not even as much seen any emergency vehicles. It’s largely been congestion-related.

In any case, the ‘incidents’ which called for a reduced limit have in likelihood passed hours ago. Again, you have to ask what procedure and parameters the control centre are operating to, and why they appear to be so reactive, not lifting limits until well after the incident is clear.

But there have also been times when it’s been 50/60/NSL all the way, which is fine in comparison. It would just be nice if the limits were more even, like they are on other motorways.

[AndyB]

NI has been extending its Hard Shoulder bus lanes. They're governed by rotating prism signs, which have up to three faces available: "Hard shoulder only", "Hard Shoulder and bus lane for 25+" with morning times and "Hard Shoulder and bus lane for 25+" with evening times. The earliest signs omitted "Only" and the new signs have bouncing balls - but the message remains simple.

There have been changes according to this leaflet Wesley dug up!

[WHBM]

I have never seen 20 on a variable speed limit sign. 30 once, but for almost an hour as traffic was utterly stationary at the time.

It actually appears dependent on which operator is on shift at the time. I can think of no other reason why different values appear, in different sequences, for comparable events.

Now only this morning (2 Jan) on the M25 northside ALR, there were two consecttive VMS of 50, and lane 1 closed. Fair enough, and all complied. Passing the second sign, the third was visible in the far distance, possibly showing similar, and could be seen to just switch off. There was no other indication given, no "End", or anything. It was just being left to people's judgement when the restriction might be over.

Incidentally, and separately, alongside the first restrictive VMS was a roadworks temporary sign alongside the carriageway showing all 4 lanes open with ahead arrows, and a 200 yards ahead plate. Possibly left behind from previous works. But it's a formal traffic sign. Now I wonder how that gets factored in to any attempt to enforce lane closures remotely.

[Berk]

Exactly. You can’t have a situation where someone says “you must obey this sign here”, and someone else says “no, you’ve got to obey this sign over here”.

If nothing else, it wouldn’t demonstrate any sort of reasonableness that the courts would expect motorists to be shown. Blasted cameras muddy the waters in these circumstances.

Cameras can only be used to enforce when there are no other restrictions in place. A police officer might be directing you to use a lane showing as closed. No-one has a remote control to switch these things off, you usually have to go to court (or via the enforcement office) to get tickets cancelled. You shouldn’t have to if you’ve been given instructions to disobey a signal.

[Bendo]

Cameras can only be used to enforce when there are no other restrictions in place. A police officer might be directing you to use a lane showing as closed. No-one has a remote control to switch these things off, you usually have to go to court (or via the enforcement office) to get tickets cancelled. You shouldn’t have to if you’ve been given instructions to disobey a signal.

Cameras are not currently used for red x enforcement so currently that scenario isn't an issue.

[Berk]

But we know that situation is about to change.

[marconaf]

I must admit as a regular motorway driver I don’t like smart motorways.

In the last 3 months I’ve had to pull over 4 times, twice for punctures (first two in 25 years!!) and twice for a child being sick and choking. In each case I had a hard shoulder available and in each case doing anything other than diving for the shoulder and stopping was not an option.

I’d have been terrified having to stop on a live lane, and waiting for a refuge isn’t possible when your wheel is flat or your daughter is choking. I’d have tried to get off by driving on to the verge - with huge consequences for getting going again - bit safer than stopped in a live lane!

I agree with an earlier poster, a couple of bad accidents with kids getting wiped out by an HGV and there will be hell to pay.

I get that full widening is vastly expensive, but having driven the M3 today, bar bridge sections, I can’t see why restoring a HS on an intermittant basis wouldn’t have been an affordable option? I mean, we don’t need them to be continuous (as the NW M25 seems to have gone to some effort at times to thread them around bridge piers whIch seems a bit OTT).

With motorways so segregated and lacking the variety of sIde turnings and verges of A roads, plus the presumption of high speed continuous flow - I see a dedicated HS, even if broken in places, as essential.

Plus - if they close the lane even when someone is in a refuge (ie off the road!!), we’ve now lost 25% of capacity for no obvious reason (being in a refuge seems safer than being on a standard HS with no closure!). I can only assume this is as the refuge lacks acceleration distance? In which case why not make them longer... and closer together... and...

Or is it that the refuge is actively monitored as part of the Smart system and someone has more liability to reduce risk when they are managing that, than a standard HS where the risk is the same but no one is making decisions and thus liable?