Smart motorways

[Clitheroekid]

I was reading recently that it's intended to remove hard shoulders from hundreds of miles of roads over the next few years in the process of converting them into `digital roads'.

On such a road, If a car breaks down there will apparently be refuge areas every mile.

The chief executive of Highways England, Jim O’Sullivan, told the Times: “With the volume, speed and size of modern cars, the refuge areas are safer than the hard shoulder. You will not get a car or truck drifting into the emergency refuge area whereas they can and do drift into the hard shoulder."

That's all very well, but the chances are pretty slim that you'll break down conveniently next to a refuge area. If, by definition, the car isn't driveable then how on earth are you supposed to get it into a refuge area that may be nearly a mile away? Push it?

If it can't be moved to a refuge area then it's far more hazardous to both the driver and other traffic than a car on a hard shoulder, as it's effectively stopped in the middle of a lane of moving traffic.

Am I missing something?

[Alaric]

Am I missing something?

I don't think so. I believe the theory is that there's continuous monitoring so they can flash up a "Lane closed" sign in an instant. There's a long stretch of the M1 that's essentially a four lane motorway without a hard shoulder. By contrast the M42 still has a hard shoulder that you are authorised to use when the motorway is "busy".

Stopping in a refuge is safer, but that's little value if your car fails nowhere near one.

[JohnB]

The refuges are designed for people, You are advised to leave your car anyway, so it would be sensible to walk against the flow of traffic to hunt for one, so you could meet the breakdown truck.

There have been news reports about increased numbers of stationary cars struck on smart motorways, but tend to be anecdotal rather than statistical. As they've been around for more than a decade now, I guess the DoT have good evidence of their benefits.

[stooz]

I had this last week, suddenly finding myself approaching a stationary car in the inside lane, myself at 70mph. just enough room to pull out before the car in lane 2 who was mid overtake of me.
a bit scary and easily a split second from missing it if I wernt being attentive or aware of my potential to swerve.

Clearly too soon for the warning lights to close the lane in time.

But there is the argument that its education - you get a problem, and you should be able to drag and force most cars to get to the layby, even with no tyre than just brake and stop.

[swill453]

But there is the argument that its education - you get a problem, and you should be able to drag and force most cars to get to the layby, even with no tyre than just brake and stop.

Well most maybe, but not all. Think cam belt breaking. So no matter what, the system has to be able to cope with broken down cars in lane 1.

Scott.

[Nimrod103]

But there is the argument that its education

It is certainly an issue of learning. I have learnt never to drive in the left hand lane of a smart motorway. I keep to one of the middle lanes, because it is safer. But if everyone did that, it rather defeats the object of turning the hard shoulder into a useable traffic lane.

[bungeejumper]

Whenever they're setting up one of these schemes, the signs go up to alert the grateful travelling public that the chaos is happening because the Highways Agency is preparing a transition to a "managed motorway" (or a "smart motorway").

Having recently spent 90 stationary minutes on the M5 south of Birmingham (grrrr), it can't come soon enough. But the inference would surely seem to be that until now we've all been putting up with "unmanaged motorways" or "stupid motorways"? So which is it to be? Maybe the super-smart Chris Grayling could tell us?

BJ

[DrFfybes]

Whenever they're setting up one of these schemes, the signs go up to alert the grateful travelling public that the chaos is happening because the Highways Agency is preparing a transition to a "managed motorway" (or a "smart motorway").

Having recently spent 90 stationary minutes on the M5 south of Birmingham (grrrr), it can't come soon enough. But the inference would surely seem to be that until now we've all been putting up with "unmanaged motorways" or "stupid motorways"? So which is it to be? Maybe the super-smart Chris Grayling could tell us?
BJ

My dad died 10 years ago. At the time I regularly drove the 250 ish miles to my mum near Oldham, from Exeter. It took a pretty reliable 4 hours with a wee stop setting off about 6pm.

These days with miles of works, cameras, reduced limits, etc I'm lucky to do it in 5 hours. Apart from the usual 30mph section at the top of the M5, over half of the M6 I use is roadworks, and there's generally at least one place where a lane (or sometimes 2) is closed all night so someone can pop out and do 30 mins of work at some point (they put the cones out after 8pm, and take them back before 6am) which grinds things to a halt for 15 mins.

I guess that with 30% more cars on the road than a decade ago we should expect longer times, and traveling outside peak times meas the hit is more noticeable, but these schemes tend to be to tackle the peak demand, which is where modern technology should be giving us alternatives, not solutions.

Still, al least they're finally spending road tax on the roads

Paul

[Howard]

We've had Smart motorways in the South for some time now and they seem to work well.

I drove back from Manchester last week at a busy time and the Smart section of the M6 North of Birmingham was delightfully free-flowing. It's only one person's perspective, but I think that the four lanes reduced the congestion dramatically compared with the old three lanes. There were many lorries but usually in the two slower lanes only. I've been driving that route occasionally for forty plus years at different times of the day and the latest change is an improvement. As a fast-lane driver, perhaps perversely, I particularly like the frequent speed camera control on Smart motorways as it means the faster traffic travel at a much more disciplined 70 mph plus or minus 5 mph. Years ago it was more stressful as the speeds could vary between 60 and 90+ mph with lots of light-flashing and leaning on slower cars by the faster drivers.

The theory is that in the case of vehicle breakdowns it is most unlikely that a car/lorry cannot be driven to the next refuge. The M25 now has radar detection to speed up the signalling of lane closures and the authorities are reducing the gaps between refuges for new schemes. I believe the statistics show that there are few accidents caused by breakdowns but there are a number of scary incidents for drivers who have stopped on a busy motorway.

regards

Howard

[bungeejumper]

I drove back from Manchester last week at a busy time and the Smart section of the M6 North of Birmingham was delightfully free-flowing. It's only one person's perspective, but I think that the four lanes reduced the congestion dramatically compared with the old three lanes.

Ah yes, but there's that bit approaching Walsall where the "driveable" hard shoulder is suddenly shut without much warning, and all the lorries who've been using it start to barge their way out into the first "standard" lane, and then traffic chaos ensues. I can't help thinking there must be a better way?

Agree with Dr F that the Lancashire run is a right pain these days. Twenty years ago, we used to make it from Bath to Bolton in two and a half hours; nowadays anything less than four and a half is a bonus, and the drive southward from Manchester to Bath can be five or even six hours if the Staffordshire M6 and the Birmingham M5 stretch are both playing up simultaneously.

Still, I guess it's a wonder that the Birmingham raised sections are still standing at all? They were shoddily built in the 1960s, thanks to a council corruption scandal that allowed the contractors to get away with cheapskate work. No corner too short to be cut.

BJ

[dionaeamuscipula]

Ah yes, but there's that bit approaching Walsall where the "driveable" hard shoulder is suddenly shut without much warning, and all the lorries who've been using it start to barge their way out into the first "standard" lane, and then traffic chaos ensues. I can't help thinking there must be a better way?

A dedicated lane in each direction for trucks, separate from the motorway itself. Reduce braking and slow trucks on hills by limiting gradients. You could even hitch the trucks together and have one big tractor at the front pulling all the other trucks along! Reduce wear and tear on the tarmac by putting down strips of metal to form the roadway.

DM

[tjh290633]

I haven't been down the M6 for over 20 years, but I found that the best way to get south of Birmingham was to cross the Mersey at Runcorn, then go via Tarporley, Whitchurch, Bridgnorth, Kidderminster then pick up the M5 north of Worcester. Down to Gloucester, over the Cotswolds to Swindon and along the M4 to Chieveley. Several alternative routes from there, but usually down the A34 towards Winchester, through the Worthy villages to pick up the A272 eastwards.

Little saving of time, but very little queuing traffic and better places to stop for a bite and to refuel.

TJH

[Nimrod103]

Ah yes, but there's that bit approaching Walsall where the "driveable" hard shoulder is suddenly shut without much warning, and all the lorries who've been using it start to barge their way out into the first "standard" lane, and then traffic chaos ensues. I can't help thinking there must be a better way?

A dedicated lane in each direction for trucks, separate from the motorway itself. Reduce braking and slow trucks on hills by limiting gradients. You could even hitch the trucks together and have one big tractor at the front pulling all the other trucks along! Reduce wear and tear on the tarmac by putting down strips of metal to form the roadway.

DM

It's been tried already, and been found to be inefficient, expensive and fundamentally uneconomic. It can be subject to a lot of union pressure as well.

[JohnB]

M25 and M3 smart motorways have improved things, though they take a very long time to implement for something that just involves digging up the hard shoulder and relaying thicker concrete, and adding some gantries.

The M25 traffic management team are very keen to impose 50 limits off peak for mile after mile of "wildlife reported" or "pedestrian in road". You know its because someone rang in and described their location as "between junctions 5 and 6"

[bungeejumper]

A dedicated lane in each direction for trucks, separate from the motorway itself. Reduce braking and slow trucks on hills by limiting gradients. You could even hitch the trucks together and have one big tractor at the front pulling all the other trucks along! Reduce wear and tear on the tarmac by putting down strips of metal to form the roadway.

DM

It's been tried already, and been found to be inefficient, expensive and fundamentally uneconomic. It can be subject to a lot of union pressure as well.

The main problem, though, is that railways don't do hills, let alone mountains. A really good railhead might get the goods to within 20 miles of where they're needed, but then the whole damn lot has to be painfully transhipped to trucks for local delivery. In a consumerist world that wants everything now, if not sooner, that's always going to be a problem.

For some unknowable reason, suppliers seem to like the idea of loading their stuff onto a lorry and then delivering it to the customer on the same lorry, and on the same day. Weird.

BJ

[Slarti]

It's been tried already, and been found to be inefficient, expensive and fundamentally uneconomic. It can be subject to a lot of union pressure as well.

Strange that so many big companies choose to send so much stuff by railfreight if it is uneconomic.

Slarti

[UncleEbenezer]

The main problem, though, is that railways don't do hills, let alone mountains.

BJ

Do we know why they stopped?

The railway to Princetown opened in 1823 and closed in 1956. At 435m (1430ft), Princetown is as high as pretty-much any settlement in Blighty. I don't know the details of why it closed: I guess an argument must be that it was uneconomic on passenger traffic alone, and the quarries that gave it freight traffic ceased operating. But the dead hand of the state looks like another suspect, given that it closed so soon after being nationalised.

[tjh290633]

I can give you an example why railways closed. The Coleford, Monmouth and Pontypool line of the GWR was lifted between Wyesham and Whitecliff Quarry during WW1. The quarry remained connected to the Network via the Severn & Wye Railway, jointly owned by the GWR and the Midland Railway. Passenger trains ran from Coleford to Monmouth and to Lydney Junction. Those to Monmouth ceased when the line was cut. Those to Lydney Junction continued until 1929, when bus competition caused them to be stopped permanently. My aunt was the only regular fare paying passenger.

The quarry traffic, plus some general goods, continued until the 1960s, when the lines closed as part of the Beeching cuts. The quarry traffic was for railway ballast use. Road haulage took over. Closure of the coal mines in the area also meant that coal traffic dried up.

There was another line built but never opened. That ran from Micheldean Road to Drybrook including the Euroclydon Tunnel. It never carried commercial traffic and was also lifted in WW1.

Shortage of steel was behind the WW1 closures. Politics and road competition killed off the Severn & Wye.

TJH

[Nimrod103]

It's been tried already, and been found to be inefficient, expensive and fundamentally uneconomic. It can be subject to a lot of union pressure as well.

Strange that so many big companies choose to send so much stuff by railfreight if it is uneconomic.

Slarti

In a quick Google I couldn't find any commercial stuff about the profitability of UK rail freight transport. AFAICS it is restricted to bulk transport from docks to consumers, and hub to hub container traffic. The bulk transport has been taking a big hit from eradication of coal fired electricity generation. Steel isn't doing too well either. But there seem to be many complaints about insufficient route capacity for freight trains, and ancient infrastructure, so I guess there is scope for expansion. Unfortunately all the investment funds are earmarked for HS2.

PS I have seen many pictures of the later years of the Princetown branch with a largish steam engine pulling one carriage. Not very profitable.

[underbank]

Manchester "Smart" motorway took a few years of pain to be converted, and doesn't even have the "pleasure" of a drivable hard shoulder - all there is to show for the years of disruption are the variable speed limit gantries and speed cameras.