Smart Motorways, is it time to end them?

[ABB125]

It really isn’t. I can drive at 60mph on the main road by my house, with no hard shoulder, and traffic coming the other way at 60mph with no barrier between us!

It always amuses me that you can do 60mph on a standard single-carriageway road, but when a 2-lane dual-carriageway has one carriageway closed (eg: for resurfacing), with traffic in both directions is moved to the other carriageway, there are always silly reflective plastic things sticking out of the tarmac along the centre line and a 50mph limit. How is 2-way traffic on one carriageway of a dual-carriageway any different to a single-carriageway, such that it needs a lower speed limit and fittings to "remind" drivers not to cross the white line?
For example, the A46 Warwick bypass is currently in this state.

There also needs to pressure on Highways England to properly manage the signs

Pedantic note - Highways England has very recently been rebranded to National Highways. No-one knows why. They've still got the same logo (and lack of imagination/"if it's not a traffic-light roundabout we're not building it") though.



As for smart motorways, I have no issue with them. No hard shoulder - need I say more that A34, A14, A1 etc? It's absolutely no different to a non-motorway dual-carriageway (though admittedly there tends to be 4 lanes on the upgraded motorway, and 2 on the A roads mentioned).
Variable speed limits - good idea, but need to be enforced. But also need to be managed properly.
Dynamic hard shoulder (DHS) - very bad idea. It's confusing ("can I use the hard shoulder?" (yes I know the signs tell you if you can, but some people are stupid!)), leads to very poorly-designed junction markings (for example, what on earth are you meant to think of this https://www.google.com/maps/@52.509...4!1skCX_RwqUCFqS0uv_f2TVkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 when the hard shoulder is being used as a running lane?) and normalises crossing a solid white line. Fortunately, all DHS is due to be converted to ALR over the next few years.
All-lane running (ALR) - good idea*. The hard shoulder is simply converted into a normal lane. Nothing confusing whatsoever. All that needs to be done is to shred the license of any driver who doesn't comprehend the fact that there's more to a motorway that lane 2 (or more likely 3 on ALR). Though this isn't something which should be restricted to smart motorways only!

*Of course, the sensible thing to do would have been to create a proper strategic road network, with more alternative, high-quality routes, so that traffic doesn't have to funnel through a single road ("all the eggs in one basket"). This also provides resilience at times of disruption. Then, there would be no need to increase capacity on the current road network.
As an example, the A50 between the M6 near Stoke-on-Trent and the M1 at not-quite-Nottingham-nor-Derby-nor-Loughborough. Were this to be fully grade-separated and improved to a consistent standard, some traffic between the M6 and M1 would use this, instead of the M6 through Birmingham. Traffic volumes on the M1 might increase a bit, but because we're thinking strategically, this would be offset by an upgraded A1 (taking more of the London-North traffic off the M1). Etc etc.
Here's a comparison of the UK with the Netherlands and (part of) Germany (countries with much more of a "network" than the UK) at the same zoom level on Google Maps. In the UK, all the thick yellow lines are motorways, a couple of major A-roads are shown in medium thickness (but, notably, not the A42 (which of course should have been built as a motorway in the first place) nor a few others), and the thin lines are irrelevant. I'm not familiar enough with the other two countries, but I assume they're similar.

(However, this is a slightly different topic, so I'll stop there!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It always amuses me that you can do 60mph on a standard single-carriageway road, but when a 2-lane dual-carriageway has one carriageway closed (eg: for resurfacing), with traffic in both directions is moved to the other carriageway, there are always silly reflective plastic things sticking out of the tarmac along the centre line and a 50mph limit. How is 2-way traffic on one carriageway of a dual-carriageway any different to a single-carriageway, such that it needs a lower speed limit and fittings to "remind" drivers not to cross the white line?

Adverse camber (the road cambering the "wrong" way) is often a reason when it's a road that has never been a single carriageway, but quite a lot of (particularly rural) duals are made up of the original single carriageway plus a second one constructed separately, e.g. parts of the A66 and A590 in the Lakes (you can tell because the side that is the old single carriageway tends to be more twisty and windy than the additional new one). In that case it is a bit odd as all you're doing is putting it back as it was.

 

[bramling]

It always amuses me that you can do 60mph on a standard single-carriageway road, but when a 2-lane dual-carriageway has one carriageway closed (eg: for resurfacing), with traffic in both directions is moved to the other carriageway, there are always silly reflective plastic things sticking out of the tarmac along the centre line and a 50mph limit. How is 2-way traffic on one carriageway of a dual-carriageway any different to a single-carriageway, such that it needs a lower speed limit and fittings to "remind" drivers not to cross the white line?
For example, the A46 Warwick bypass is currently in this state.

Pedantic note - Highways England has very recently been rebranded to National Highways. No-one knows why. They've still got the same logo (and lack of imagination/"if it's not a traffic-light roundabout we're not building it") though.



As for smart motorways, I have no issue with them. No hard shoulder - need I say more that A34, A14, A1 etc? It's absolutely no different to a non-motorway dual-carriageway (though admittedly there tends to be 4 lanes on the upgraded motorway, and 2 on the A roads mentioned).
Variable speed limits - good idea, but need to be enforced. But also need to be managed properly.
Dynamic hard shoulder (DHS) - very bad idea. It's confusing ("can I use the hard shoulder?" (yes I know the signs tell you if you can, but some people are stupid!)), leads to very poorly-designed junction markings (for example, what on earth are you meant to think of this https://www.google.com/maps/@52.509...4!1skCX_RwqUCFqS0uv_f2TVkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 when the hard shoulder is being used as a running lane?) and normalises crossing a solid white line. Fortunately, all DHS is due to be converted to ALR over the next few years.
All-lane running (ALR) - good idea*. The hard shoulder is simply converted into a normal lane. Nothing confusing whatsoever. All that needs to be done is to shred the license of any driver who doesn't comprehend the fact that there's more to a motorway that lane 2 (or more likely 3 on ALR). Though this isn't something which should be restricted to smart motorways only!

*Of course, the sensible thing to do would have been to create a proper strategic road network, with more alternative, high-quality routes, so that traffic doesn't have to funnel through a single road ("all the eggs in one basket"). This also provides resilience at times of disruption. Then, there would be no need to increase capacity on the current road network.
As an example, the A50 between the M6 near Stoke-on-Trent and the M1 at not-quite-Nottingham-nor-Derby-nor-Loughborough. Were this to be fully grade-separated and improved to a consistent standard, some traffic between the M6 and M1 would use this, instead of the M6 through Birmingham. Traffic volumes on the M1 might increase a bit, but because we're thinking strategically, this would be offset by an upgraded A1 (taking more of the London-North traffic off the M1). Etc etc.
Here's a comparison of the UK with the Netherlands and (part of) Germany (countries with much more of a "network" than the UK) at the same zoom level on Google Maps. In the UK, all the thick yellow lines are motorways, a couple of major A-roads are shown in medium thickness (but, notably, not the A42 (which of course should have been built as a motorway in the first place) nor a few others), and the thin lines are irrelevant. I'm not familiar enough with the other two countries, but I assume they're similar.
View attachment 102244View attachment 102245View attachment 102246
(However, this is a slightly different topic, so I'll stop there!)

I'm not sure the comparison between motorways and dual-carriageway A-roads is an entirely fair one. Many motorways tend to be much busier, and smart motorways tend to be the busiest ones - that's why they're converted in the first place. Some of the busiest A-road dual carriageways are absolutely horrible to use - the A12 and A34 spring to mind, they're far from the only ones. I'm not sure making out motorways more akin to these roads is the way we should be going.

 

[Ianno87]

As an example, the A50 between the M6 near Stoke-on-Trent and the M1 at not-quite-Nottingham-nor-Derby-nor-Loughborough. Were this to be fully grade-separated and improved to a consistent standard, some traffic between the M6 and M1 would use this, instead of the M6 through Birmingham. Traffic volumes on the M1 might increase a bit, but because we're thinking strategically, this would be offset by an upgraded A1 (taking more of the London-North traffic off the M1). Etc etc.

Google routinely offers route suggestions via the A50 today, particularly when M6 traffic is heavy. Though if you made the A50 too good, the problem would probably transfer to the stretch of the M6 around Holmes Chapel, which seems to go to queuing every time somebody sneezes.

 

[bramling]

Google routinely offers route suggestions via the A50 today, particularly when M6 traffic is heavy. Though if you made the A50 too good, the problem would probably transfer to the stretch of the M6 around Holmes Chapel, which seems to go to queuing every time somebody sneezes.

I would pretty much always do M1-A50-M6 as routine, as it generally offers a much more pleasant journey than via Birmingham. Whilst the M6 Toll is pleasant to use as well, the sections on either end of this can still be horrible. In fact, for a Hertfordshire to North-West journey, A1-A14-M1-A50-M6 is quite satisfactory so long as there aren't too many trucks on the A14 (or, more to the point, trucks overtaking each other followed by a string of cars who then take a further five minutes to sort themselves out).

I hate the Rugby to London section of the M1, both for its incessant roadworks and for the fact that most of it is now a smart motorway. A generation ago the M1 used to be quite a decent road - in particular as my recollection is it was fully lit at night, nowadays it's awful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Google routinely offers route suggestions via the A50 today, particularly when M6 traffic is heavy. Though if you made the A50 too good, the problem would probably transfer to the stretch of the M6 around Holmes Chapel, which seems to go to queuing every time somebody sneezes.

People have gone that way for years. I did most of the time before the M6 Toll was built, which not only provided that as a faster route but also made through Birmingham a bit quicker by taking some of the traffic off it. Even as it is it's almost French motorway standard, bar the punctuation of one part of it with roundabouts and the now considerably reduced (presumably for noise abatement/pollution) speed limits on the urban bits through Stoke.

I seem to recall it opened in about 2000. Confused the life out of me on a North West-Nottingham journey with an out of date map book!

 

[gaillark]

I very much prefer routing via A50 instead of M6 via Birmingham from London to the NorthWest.
Much nicer countryside and more relaxing journey.

 

[PeterY]

@gingerheid
"Terrifying"is the word.

Seems crazy to have more new complicated rules when many drivers do not know the existing ones, or choose to ignore them. Lots of signs have long texts that take several seconds to read.

I rarely use motorways but I have used a smart motorway. I've watched various programs about them and they seem terrifying for anyone who has the misfortune to break down.

If I see a 40mph sign, it's time to try and get off the motorway at the first chance.

 

[gaillark]

Trouble with National Highways is that is useless at providing quality useful information to drivers.
Taking the example of "40". It does not state how far ahead the incident is. You can travel on the M25 for miles with 40 and nothing happening. It disrupts trafic flow whereas if the variable message signs stated Incident 3 miles ahead then counting down until last one reading 800 yards ahead. Slow down NOW one would get much clear information to where the problem is.

Another gripe I have is messages such as A1 closed after A603. or A14 closed J34-37.
Where the hell are these places. Why can't they message say A1 closed at Biggleswade at A603.
A14 closed Cambridge E (J34) to Newmarket (J37).
Much clearer to all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you get an unqualified 40 that is automatic. If it is put up manually a reason will normally be put up too.

It doesn't "disrupt traffic flow", it prevents stop start traffic by dealing with the brake light cascade, by slowing the traffic down to just below what it would naturally do. It is absolute genius. I was commuting on the M25 for a period when it was first installed, and the "after" was hugely better than the "before" even though that installation doesn't have all lane running so there was no expansion of road capacity in itself.

 

[zwk500]

Trouble with National Highways is that is useless at providing quality useful information to drivers.
Taking the example of "40". It does not state how far ahead the incident is. You can travel on the M25 for miles with 40 and nothing happening. It disrupts trafic flow whereas if the variable message signs stated Incident 3 miles ahead then counting down until last one reading 800 yards ahead. Slow down NOW one would get much clear information to where the problem is.

The point of the system is to slow you down early so that traffic doesn't bunch up at the incident site.

Another gripe I have is messages such as A1 closed after A603. or A14 closed J34-37.
Where the hell are these places. Why can't they message say A1 closed at Biggleswade at A603.
A14 closed Cambridge E (J34) to Newmarket (J37).
Much clearer to all.

This was happening last time I drove the M1. However older signs don't have as many characters they can display so would B'wade be as well understood?

 

[gaillark]

If you get an unqualified 40 that is automatic. If it is put up manually a reason will normally be put up too.

It doesn't "disrupt traffic flow", it prevents stop start traffic by dealing with the brake light cascade, by slowing the traffic down to just below what it would naturally do. It is absolute genius. I was commuting on the M25 for a period when it was first installed, and the "after" was hugely better than the "before" even though that installation doesn't have all lane running so there was no expansion of road capacity in itself

This may be objective but IT DOES NOT HELP by messaging to early many miles ahead.
Driving at 40 when there is free flowing traffic is dangerous.
The point here is to get the message warning of an obstruction ahead. Nobody disagrees with this but it needs to be done nearer to the incident site not many miles ahead.

How many times also has 40 been switched on only to find at next gantry end of restriction with no sign of any obstruction. Its poorly managed.
I drive daily and standards of motorway driver information are really poor and could do with significant improvement.

 

[thejuggler]

There will always be a point where a temporary limit ends, so 40 to nothing does happen.

The issue is you don't know what is going on potentially miles ahead. Police operation, animals in the road, vulnerable person walking on the motorway, debris in the road etc. Traffic will be slowed well in advance in these cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This may be objective but IT DOES NOT HELP by messaging to early many miles ahead.

Ahead of what? When done automatically the limit is not imposed because of a specific incident (though it can be manually and often is, e.g. if there is an obstruction or jam). The limit is imposed to a speed slightly less than the likely speed of cars on the road naturally, which reduces congestion and increases throughput by decreasing the safe gap between cars. It's really clever and it really works, provided people play along with it.

Driving at 40 when there is free flowing traffic is dangerous.

Driving at 40 when the limit is 70 is dangerous. Even though not illegal if you do it for long enough you'll get pulled over and a talking to about it.

Driving at 40 when the limit is 40 is not dangerous because everyone is driving at 40 (or no more than the classic 10% + 2mph above it) because if they don't they will get flashed and get a fine.

The point here is to get the message warning of an obstruction ahead. Nobody disagrees with this but it needs to be done nearer to the incident site not many miles ahead.

No, it's not just about obstructions, it's about maintaining free-flowing traffic which is done by reducing speed to increase capacity and reduce panic braking. And it's incredibly effective (and would be even more so if it was capable of going down to 20 or 10 automatically).

 

[AM9]

The point of the system is to slow you down early so that traffic doesn't bunch up at the incident site.

This was happening last time I drove the M1. However older signs don't have as many characters they can display so would B'wade be as well understood?

There is a limit to how much text can be safely read by a driver travelling at speed in heavy traffic so insisting on more explicit information may not increase the safety of the warnings overall.

 

[zwk500]

There is a limit to how much text can be safely read by a driver travelling at speed in heavy traffic so insisting on more explicit information may not increase the safety of the warnings overall.

Indeed, in the example I was talking about the gantries on the M1 alternated between 'A5 queue at Axxx' and 'A5 queue at (place)'. Although the messages on the whole do seem to be getting longer.

 

[Roast Veg]

At the North end of the M1 I frequently see no national speed limit sign after a restriction. You get cars tentatively speeding up depending on their risk appetite.

 

[AM9]

At the North end of the M1 I frequently see no national speed limit sign after a restriction. You get cars tentatively speeding up depending on their risk appetite.

Hasn't that been discussed here before. There seems to be a consensus that if you subsequently pass an electronic sign that is not displaying any speed limit (say two to be safe) , then the NSL applies, (unless regulars - three or more street lights suddenly appear spaced less than 183m/200yd apart in which case, in the absence of any other indication of speed limit you are in a 30mph area).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hasn't that been discussed here before. There seems to be a consensus that if you subsequently pass an electronic sign that is not displaying any speed limit (say two to be safe) , then the NSL applies, (unless regulars - three or more street lights suddenly appear spaced less than 183m/200yd apart in which case, in the absence of any other indication of speed limit you are in a 30mph area).

In my understanding the cameras record (via fibre optics) what was actually being displayed on the associated sign at the time as distinct from what should be. So while they might record a car going in excess of what was supposed to be the limit, a fine would not be sent if the sign was unreadable or blank, or if it was would be appealable.

 

[Roast Veg]

In my understanding the cameras record (via fibre optics) what was actually being displayed on the associated sign at the time as distinct from what should be. So while they might record a car going in excess of what was supposed to be the limit, a fine would not be sent if the sign was unreadable or blank, or if it was would be appealable.

That is personally reassuring, but the confusion on the road (and resultant disparity in acceleration from drivers) poses what I percieve to be a pretty high accident risk.

 

[zwk500]

That is personally reassuring, but the confusion on the road (and resultant disparity in acceleration from drivers) poses what I percieve to be a pretty high accident risk.

Agreed. Gantries should be required to step down to and up from any restriction, to manage the acceleration. They are sometimes, but others they just go from 40 to blank.
Also they should have a piece of code that stops the limit swapping between speeds from one gantry to the next. If it's 40 either side, why bother putting 50 for 1/4 mile?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is personally reassuring, but the confusion on the road (and resultant disparity in acceleration from drivers) poses what I percieve to be a pretty high accident risk.

It's no higher an accident risk than stationary traffic on a conventional motorway. Indeed, a lower one, because you know there's been something going on so are more cautious.

 

[Domh245]

It's no higher an accident risk than stationary traffic on a conventional motorway. Indeed, a lower one, because you know there's been something going on so are more cautious.

It may be no higher risk, but given the opportunity to engineer out the risk by removing speed differentials, why wouldn't you

 

[Loppylugs]

As an ex class 1 driver I think the installation of "smart" motorways is plain stupid and downright dangerous. I had a blow-out on the right-hand side of a trailer once on the M1 near Mansfield. A lorry of that size takes up a lot of room on the hard shoulder and the guy changing the wheel wasn't too happy at the thought of sticking his rear close to oncoming traffic, whatever speed it was doing, even though I had pulled over as far as I could. The thought of vehicles approaching from behind or even closer to the side of the vehicle is a worrying development, whatever the warning signs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an ex class 1 driver I think the installation of "smart" motorways is plain stupid and downright dangerous. I had a blow-out on the right-hand side of a trailer once on the M1 near Mansfield. A lorry of that size takes up a lot of room on the hard shoulder and the guy changing the wheel wasn't too happy at the thought of sticking his rear close to oncoming traffic, whatever speed it was doing, even though I had pulled over as far as I could. The thought of vehicles approaching from behind or even closer to the side of the vehicle is a worrying development, whatever the warning signs.

Arguably it's better in your case, as they would close two lanes, not one, so you would have a buffer of safety to change the wheel.

 

[ABB125]

As an ex class 1 driver I think the installation of "smart" motorways is plain stupid and downright dangerous. I had a blow-out on the right-hand side of a trailer once on the M1 near Mansfield. A lorry of that size takes up a lot of room on the hard shoulder and the guy changing the wheel wasn't too happy at the thought of sticking his rear close to oncoming traffic, whatever speed it was doing, even though I had pulled over as far as I could. The thought of vehicles approaching from behind or even closer to the side of the vehicle is a worrying development, whatever the warning signs.

Passing traffic should be further away from the lorry, as on a smart motorway lane 1 is the width of a normal lane. A hard shoulder is getting on for a metre narrower than a normal lane (though, of course, there are exceptions in both directions).

 

[zwk500]

Arguably it's better in your case, as they would close two lanes, not one, so you would have a buffer of safety to change the wheel.

If I was the individual potentially placing myself in a running lane, I wouldn't be relying on drivers obeying the Red X to save my life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I was the individual potentially placing myself in a running lane, I wouldn't be relying on drivers obeying the Red X to save my life.

Often the HETOs* will also come along and assist by parking their vehicle in the way. But either way better to have two lanes closed than one, providing a buffer.

* Highways England Traffic Officer. Shame they devolved it, as the old "HATO" sounded better

 

[ABB125]

Often the HETOs* will also come along and assist by parking their vehicle in the way. But either way better to have two lanes closed than one, providing a buffer.

* Highways England Traffic Officer. Shame they devolved it, as the old "HATO" sounded better

An now they're NHTOs

"National Highways Traffic Officers"

But that sounds even worse!

 

[Peter Sarf]

More than once I have encountered the left one or two lanes being closed. Almost always there is nothing there so I tend to stay in lane 1 and drive slower.

On one bit of smart motorway A1 South approaching A14 iirc. Two left lanes closed (red cross above so legally binding) and 40mph limit. I pulled over to lane three and quickly collected a queue of traffic getting round me doing a lot nearer to 70mph. It was terrifying. I thought I must have mis-read the signs but my passenger assuered me I was correct. I ended up going into the closed lane 2 but sticking to 40mph. We never saw any obstruction. Later that night on the M25 another set of restrictions just ceased with no road clear indication. I sped up to 70mph once I was sure no one else was doing 40.

I am completely onvinced that apart from raising awareness to a potential hazard the smart motorway technoligy is inveriably crying wolf and so is best taken with a pinch of salt oterwise it can be dangerous in its own right. If only it was working properly then it should be a benefit. I feel that the tecnology is just there as an excuse to allow the removal of the hard shoulder and no care has been taken to see if it works properly.

I must say there are stretches of the A1 that terrify me with no hard shoulder and, as others have said, no smart technology.