Most Smart Motorways ‘Not Value for Money,’ Say Reports
Recent reports from National Highways indicate that many smart motorways are not providing the expected value for money originally anticipated. Here’s an overview of the findings regarding these controversial road systems.
– Overview of Smart Motorways: Smart motorways were introduced to alleviate congestion and enhance motorway capacity through advanced technology that regulates traffic flow. The simplest type, controlled motorways, function like conventional motorways but employ overhead gantry signs and variable speed limits to manage traffic. More contentious schemes allow drivers to use the hard shoulder as an extra lane:
– Dynamic Hard Shoulder: Permits traffic on the hard shoulder during peak times.
– All-Lane Running: Eliminates the hard shoulder entirely, replacing it with a live lane.
While these innovations were meant to improve traffic management, they have also raised safety concerns. Drivers experiencing difficulties are advised to reach designated refuge areas, yet many have reported stranded vehicles in live lanes.
– Safety Record Concerns: Edmund King, president of the AA, noted that smart motorways have exhibited a mixed safety record. Although controlled motorways are generally safer, many others have unfortunately seen a rise in fatalities and serious injuries. King described the current scenario as frightening, emphasizing the reliance on immediate action from surrounding drivers when lanes are closed.
– Current Performance of Smart Motorways: National Highways regularly assesses England’s smart motorways against initial goals, including safety and congestion impacts. While the organization asserts that most schemes meet safety benchmarks, critics argue otherwise. The AA highlighted discrepancies in evaluation methods and called attention to increases in fatalities on specific sections, questioning the overall safety of smart motorways.
– Financial Performance: Out of sixteen projects reviewed, only three are expected to meet their financial objectives. Notably, two major schemes have been particularly underwhelming:
– M25 Section: Initially set at £180 million, it has failed to yield the promised improvements in journey times.
– M6 Section: A £118 million dynamic hard shoulder project near Birmingham improved morning traffic but significantly hampered evening travel.
Both sections are projected to provide very poor value throughout their anticipated 60-year lifetimes.
– Safety Evaluations and Criticism: National Highways claims their five-year evaluations show smart motorways delivering safety benefits aligned with initial forecasts, indicating lower collision rates than traditional motorways. However, the AA disputes these findings, citing inconsistencies and performance drops in specific areas, including the M3 and M1.
– Government Position: The Department for Transport announced that no new smart motorways would be constructed, though existing ones remain classified as among the safest roads, indicating they are on par with or safer than the roads they have replaced. National Highways supports this notion, affirming their role in reducing congestion and carbon emissions.
In conclusion, while the idea behind smart motorways was to enhance traffic efficiency and safety, reports suggest that they have fallen short on several fronts, raising doubts about their overall value for money. As the debates continue, understanding the implications is crucial for motorists navigating these complex road systems.